907121

research-article2020
JOBXXX10.1177/2329488420907121International Journal of Business CommunicationPark and Jiang

Article
International Journal of

Signaling, Verification, and

Business Communication
1­–25
© The Author(s) 2020
Identification: The Way Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Corporate Social Advocacy DOI: 10.1177/2329488420907121
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420907121
journals.sagepub.com/home/job
Generates Brand Loyalty on
Social Media

Keonyoung Park1 and Hua Jiang1

Abstract
Scholars have become increasingly interested in the importance of corporate
social advocacy to an organization’s bottom line. However, few researchers have
investigated the subliminal mechanism with which corporations’ political engagement
attracts public attention and creates positive corporate-public relationships. This
study examines corporations’ identification with sociopolitical issues as an identity
signaling practice. Rooted in the signaling and social identity theories, this study
proposes a model that demonstrates the positive effects of corporate social advocacy
activities on brand loyalty. This study sheds light on the role of brand community
engagement as a signal verification process. Public-company identification leads to
brand loyalty, which indicates the public’s acceptance of a corporation’s signal. We
tested our proposed model through an online survey with participants recruited
from Amazon Mechanical Turk (N = 960). Theoretical and practical contributions of
this study were discussed.

Keywords
corporate social advocacy, signaling theory, social media brand community, public-
company identification, brand loyalty

1
Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:
Hua Jiang, Associate Professor, Department of Public Relations, S.I. Newhouse School of Public
Communications, Syracuse University, 215 University Place, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA.
Email: hjiang07@syr.edu
2 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Introduction
As members of a civic society, corporations have expanded the boundaries of their
nonmarket activities in recent years (Frederick, 2008), and some of them have even
ceased hesitating to engage in sensitive issues. For instance, Nike has participated in
racial justice activism and has launched a new commercial produced in association with
a controversial football player, Colin Kaepernick, who kneeled while the U.S. national
anthem was played before the start of an NFL (National Football League) game to pro-
test against racial injustice in the United States. Unlike previous corporate social
responsibility (CSR) practices, which have been related largely to topics on which there
is social consensus, current corporate social advocacy (CSA) activities represent corpo-
rations’ definitive stance on controversial sociopolitical issues (Frynas et al., 2017).
Because these issues are controversial, corporations may receive both positive and
negative responses on social media after stating their positions on the issues. For
example, in reaction to Nike’s new ad, people have debated the company’s stance
vehemently on social media. Some people have engaged in supportive actions, includ-
ing sharing, liking, and commenting on Nike’s posts, while others have hashtagged
with anti-Nike tweets. However, despite the controversy, online sales of Nike products
increased dramatically, and its stock surged approximately 30% after the ad’s release
(Gleeson, 2018). These phenomena echoed the findings of previous studies—CSA can
be associated with positive financial outcomes (Dodd & Supa, 2014).
As the public is paying increasing attention to CSA, scholars have been studying its
effects, focusing particularly on its financial consequences (e.g., Dodd & Supa, 2014,
2015; Nalick et al., 2016). However, there have been few efforts to investigate the
subliminal mechanism by which corporations’ political engagement attracts public
attention and creates positive relationships. Specifically, previous research has rarely
explored public discourse in response to CSA engagement, even though CSA can be a
crucial factor in influencing public opinion toward the corporation, which causes sub-
sequent financial outcomes. Considering the current role of social media in enabling
communication between companies and the general public (Men & Tsai, 2012), more
empirical studies are needed to investigate the effect of CSA social media engagement
in achieving a comprehensive understanding of the outcomes of corporate social and
political engagement.
Accordingly, this study draws on two theoretical frameworks to explain the relation
between CSA and financial outcomes: the signaling theory (Spence, 2002) and the
social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986, 2004). Based on these two theories, this
study demonstrates the positive effects of CSA activities on brand loyalty. Specifically,
this study evaluates the function of CSA as an identity signaling process, which
includes signaling, decoding (i.e., verification), and acceptance. In signaling relevant
information, a company discloses its identity to its internal and external audiences to
garner positive evaluations (Spence, 2002). This study views CSA engagement as an
effective signal that reveals a corporation’s identity as an active member of society.
Focusing on a collective decoding process in reaction to the corporation’s signal, this
study sheds light on the role of social media in developing brand community, in which
Park and Jiang 3

people can interact with others, including the company, and as a result, they can decide
whether they accept the identity the company signals. Thus, as an indication of accep-
tance of the signal, public-company identification (PCI) can lead to brand loyalty.
Taken together, we propose a holistic conceptual model that associates (1) a corpo-
ration’s identification with an issue, (2) the public’s social media brand community
engagement; (3) public-corporate identification, and (4) brand loyalty. By providing
empirical evidence to test the proposed model, this study helps us better understand
the way in which CSA influences financial outcomes. It also provides meaningful
implications for corporations’ public relations personnel to engage in social issues
effectively in order to generate positive opinions and attract supporters.

Literature Review
CSA and Controversial Issues
Previous research has found that publics’ expectations of corporate social accountabil-
ity are ambivalent (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). People expect corporations and
business owners to take responsibility as members of civil society outside the market
(Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). Hence, scholars define CSR as “the voluntary actions
that a corporation implements as it pursues its mission and fulfills its perceived obliga-
tions to stakeholders, including employees, communities, the environment, and soci-
ety as a whole” (Coombs & Holladay, 2011). However, these expectations have not
always meant that people anticipate corporations to serve as social and political activ-
ists who engage deeply in issues (Morsing et al., 2008; Robinson & Eilert, 2018),
especially when there is no social consensus on those issues. In these circumstances,
many corporations have avoided stating their opinions and have instead adopted ambi-
guity when participating in CSR practices. Guthey and Morsing (2014) noted that
different stakeholders’ conflicting expectations of corporations cause the ambiguities
in CSR. In a similar vein, previous CSR activities have tended to focus on universal
issues (e.g., environment, culture, health, hunger, education) or supported causes indi-
rectly (e.g., partnerships with nonprofits and donations; Selsky & Parker, 2005).
Despite the advantages of such general CSR campaigns, some corporations have
become active participants in diverse social issues that extend above those that are
general. Frederick (2008) noted that the concept of CSR has changed to one of active
engagement in response to public requests for corporations to assume the same duties
and obligations as other members of civil society.
Considering those differences from traditional CSR, scholars proposed a new con-
cept of corporations’ social engagement and referred to it as corporate social advocacy.
CSA entails a company publicizing a definitive stance on sociopolitical issues (Dodd
& Supa, 2014; Jenkins, 2014; Kozinets, 2014). According to Dodd and Supa (2014),
CSA’s characteristics differ from those of CSR. First, the target issues in CSA are not
related necessarily to the organization’s business. In addition, engagement in the issues
often provokes controversial reactions from different members of the public. Thus,
CSA practices can affect organizations’ financial outcomes in unexpected ways.
4 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Issues CSA supports can be defined as sociopolitical issues that are “salient unre-
solved social matters on which societal and institutional opinion is split, thus poten-
tially engendering acrimonious debate across groups” (Nalick et al., 2016, p. 386).
These authors indicated that the elements of sociopolitical issues include (1) lack of
societal consensus, (2) low information rationality, and (3) evolving viewpoints and
issue salience. In these respects, sociopolitical issues are characterized as controver-
sial and provoke massive debates between those who advocate the issue and those who
oppose it. For example, although a number of companies have participated in CSR
practices by supporting socially marginalized people, Starbucks’ refugee hiring plan
as CSA has provoked risk of boycott because the refugee is related to immigration,
which is one of the controversial sociopolitical issues.
Although engaging in sociopolitical issues might be contentious, which makes it
impossible for corporations to predict the outcomes (Dodd & Supa, 2014), evidence
suggests that CSA helps corporations build quality relationships with stakeholders.
Previous research claimed that corporations project a positive image to their stake-
holders when they identify their stance clearly rather than remaining ambiguous.
Stakeholders broadly refer to an individual or a group of individuals as well as a subset
of the group who are related to the organization, such as employees, shareholders,
community members, and so on (Jones, 1995). Investigating the effects of CSA on
public perceptions of corporate identity, this study focuses on consumers among the
diverse stakeholders. Robinson and Eilert (2018) showed that a specific messaging
strategy on a single issue is more effective in eliciting consumers’ positive evaluations
than a general messaging strategy, because consumers trust corporate messages that
support specific causes. Leitch and Davenport (2011) also offered empirical evidence
showing that lack of clarity can damage corporate trust in the management process.
Specifically, a corporation that adopts a distinct stance on a controversial issue can
build its own identity. A corporation’s identity refers to its organizational characteris-
tics that are presented to, and interpreted by, both internal and external audiences
(Balmer, 2001; Hatch & Schultz, 1997). Previous studies have indicated that an orga-
nization’s identity is important in building its image, which influences stakeholders’
willingness to interact with it (Hatch & Schulz, 1997). When a corporation has a more
distinctive and prestigious identity, consumers tend to perceive it to be more attractive
(Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Dutton et al., 1994). When a company advertises its social
identity with respect to specific issues and causes, it can attract in-group members and
exclude out-group members. In this vein, CSA practices that definitively identify with
a social issue can attract members of activist groups, although they may alienate con-
sumers whose opinions on the issue differ (Dodd & Supa, 2014). Hence, this study
assumed that corporations’ identification with a controversial social issue can serve as
a signal of its identity designed to attract the public’s attention and support.

Signaling Identity
Signaling theory helps interpret the way in which a corporation’s CSA engagement may
attract public attention. Because the general public does not have complete information
Park and Jiang 5

about a corporation, its members need to interpret various pieces of information about
the organization in order to determine its identity. In this circumstance, by signaling
relevant information, a company discloses its identity to others to attract them and elicit
positive evaluations (Spence, 2002).
Corporations’ identification with issues under the umbrella of CSA practices can
serve as an effective signal because it can be observed clearly. As suggested above,
CSA involves a corporation taking a definitive stance on a controversial issue, unlike
CSR, which is generally marked by an ambiguous attitude (e.g., Guthey & Morsing,
2014). Previous research has highlighted that the extent to which outsiders perceive
that a signal is credible is a critical predictor of the signal’s effectiveness (Connelly
et al., 2011). Even if corporations engage in socially responsible activities, if they are
not readily noticeable, those actions cannot be used as signals to attract public atten-
tion. Therefore, signals should be sufficiently strong, intense, clear, and visible, not
distorted or deceptive (Connelly et al., 2011; Lampel & Shamsie, 2000; Ramaswami
et al., 2010; Warner et al., 2006). Previous research has shown that a corporation’s
social activities can serve as signals that attract people outside the organization
(Greening & Turban, 2000). Therefore, by signaling its identity through CSA, a cor-
poration can attract not only supporters but also employees.

Signal’s Collective Verification on Social Media

The effects of signaling might not be obvious immediately. Individuals may need to engage
in a decoding process to evaluate the signal’s credibility and fit (i.e., value) before accept-
ing the content signaled. The decoding process used to authenticate signals takes place not
only in individual information processing but also in collective processing through com-
munication with the signaler (e.g., a corporation) and other receivers (e.g., employees and
any external audiences such as consumers; Donath, 2007). Once people become aware of
a corporation’s definitive political voice, they may talk with others to share their impres-
sions and obtain further information to interpret the CSA practice. Previous research has
shown that ideological extremity and attitude strength predict participation and individual
willingness to voice opinions publicly (Scheufele et al., 2003).
Communication scholars have shed light on the role of social media brand com-
munity as a public sphere that facilitates people’s discussions of current social issues
(Fuchs, 2015; Tufekci & Wilson, 2012). The boundaries of a brand community on
social media are unclear. Engaging in a social media brand community does not neces-
sarily require an official process to join the group. People can engage in a brand com-
munity by simple actions, such as liking, sharing, or commenting on a related post or
uploading a new post with a hashtag (e.g., Men & Tsai, 2015). Like Nike’s ad, which
has generated an enormous amount of social media discussion, corporations’ CSA
practices can lead people to become engaged in brand-related communication on
social media and become members of a brand community thereby. Previous research
has identified three dimensions of social media engagement to explain the ways in
which individuals participate in communication on social media: functional, emo-
tional, and communal engagement (Lim et al., 2015).
6 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Functional engagement refers to social media interactions among users who share con-
tent (Lim et al., 2015). People engage in social media communication to share information
and participate in the value co-creation process through their conversations (Brodie et al.,
2013). Lovejoy and Saxton (2012) claimed that people have functional communities on
social media that allow stakeholders to interact, share, and converse in a way that facilitates
the creation of an online community ultimately. Corporations’ issue identification might
trigger users to communicate with others on social media based on the issue and the corpo-
ration. As L. M.Smith et al. (2013) noted, people tend to participate in discussions of con-
troversial issues through social media by tweeting, retweeting, and hashtagging.
Emotional engagement on social media describes individual users’ motivations
based on emotional attachment to other users and the community’s organizer. Chen
et al. (2009) noted that emotional interactions are natural consequences of individuals’
communication online. Communication with other users on social media occurs pri-
marily in the intangible emotional domain and reinforces social or moral bonds within
the community (Schau et al., 2009). When a corporation takes one side in a controver-
sial issue, it provokes the public’s emotional responses, both positive and negative,
and they can express their feelings or support others’ emotional expressions in response
to CSA. Scholars have asserted that social media users may attach their emotions to a
corporation, and the emotional attachment leads individuals to engage in social media
communication with the company (Whan Park et al., 2010).
Communal engagement is related to a sense of belonging and social connection
(Chen, 2011). People fulfill their need to be connected with others and belong by joining
a social group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Social media brand communities network people
through hashtags that allow them to communicate shared values (Roncha & Radclyffe-
Thomas, 2016). Previous research has indicated that engaging in social media commu-
nication can also fulfill people’s needs. When a corporation discloses its social stance, it
can be an effective signal that attracts people who have a similar position on the issue
(Dodd & Supa, 2014). People who have issue congruency tend to interact and build close
relationships, while excluding others with incongruent views. Considering communica-
tion related to CSA, social media engagement in advocating a shared issue allows users
to feel a sense of community with others who take the same stance on that issue. In this
vein, individuals may have alignment with each other to form an in-group. Brand
engagement in social issues empowers people to work collectively in order to find solu-
tions to a problem (Jenkins, 2014; Kozinets, 2014). Earl and Kimport (2011) claimed
that participants in a social movement may share emotions generated by a sense of com-
munity. Accordingly, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Corporate issue identification is positively related to the pub-

lic’s social media engagement (functional, emotional, and communal).

Accepting the Signal: Public-Company Identification

When people are triggered by a corporation’s advocacy messages, they may recognize the
corporation’s values clearly and identify with them by interacting with the corporation
and other social media users. In engaging in social media communication based on brand
Park and Jiang 7

community, people have the opportunity to evaluate and share the brand’s identity.
Previous research has noted that even if a brand community attracts people with interests
in topics related to the brand (Brodie et al., 2013), they may engage in shared value cre-
ation practices in the community as well (Laroche et al., 2012). In this collective process,
people can decide whether to accept the corporation’s identity its CSA practices signal.
Social identity theory explains the acceptance of a corporation’s identity, in that
people construct a sense of who they are based on their group memberships (Tajfel &
Turner, 1986, 2004). Social identity theory emphasizes that membership in different
social organizations, including the company for which an individual works, influences
one’s self-concept (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994). Tajfel and Turner
(1986) stated that people derive a sense of self-esteem and social belonging from their
group memberships. Thus, they are more likely to compare their own group with oth-
ers and describe their own identity with reference to that of the group (Tajfel & Turner,
2004). Donath (2007) claimed that people use their personal identities as signals to
build and tailor trusted social groups on social media.
Given the insights of social identity theory, previous research has shown the way in
which people identify themselves with a specific company by accepting its identity.
For example, Greening and Turban (2000) noted that job applicants tend to have posi-
tive self-images when they work for socially responsible corporations. They suggested
that knowledge of a corporation’s actions that support sociopolitical issues and culti-
vate their associated stakeholders influences a corporation’s reputation and image.
In describing the strong emotional attachment between consumers and companies,
scholars have adopted the concept of consumer-company identification (CCI; Einwiller
et al., 2006; Homburg et al., 2009). CCI refers to the public’s perception of similarity
to a company and signifies an object with symbolic meaning (Tuškej et al., 2013).
Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) noted that consumers who attempt to fulfil their self-
definitional needs demonstrate CCI, and they develop a self-image similar to a corpo-
ration’s values, image, and norms when they have a higher level of CCI. Given that
CCI is a self-motivated relational concept, it has been investigated in prior literature as
a stronger attitude toward a company in comparison with other concepts, such as repu-
tation, trust, or commitment (Kim, 2019). In addition, CCI is constructed through
shared values and/or long-term interaction with corporations (Homburg et al., 2009).
Previous research has shown that consumers join a brand community to fulfill their
need for the identification derived from a shared group identity (Habibi et al., 2014).
This study thus defined the acceptance of the corporate identity that CSA practices
signal as PCI. Consumers with CCI tend to foster a powerful relationship with corpo-
rations (McEwen, 2005). However, unlike the way in which CCI reflects consumers’
identity, PCI can result from attracting members of the public who share concerns
about a sociopolitical problem that a company advocates for. The perception of brands
and social entities facilitates individuals’ identification with the company (Scott &
Lane, 2000). Therefore, we proposed Hypotheses 2 and 3:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Corporate issue identification is positively associated with PCI.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): The public’s social media engagement is positively associated
with PCI.
8 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

CSA and Brand Loyalty

This study examines brand loyalty as the final outcome variable. The public’s identi-
fication with a company refers to a strong cognitive relationship that can be associ-
ated with their cognitive and behavioral outcomes. Previous research has shown that
people tend to present a self-image that matches a particular brand and is related posi-
tively not only to brand preference but also to brand loyalty, including purchase
intention (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2010). For example, having self-congruity with an
event sponsor positively influences loyalty to the sponsor’s brand (Sirgy et al., 2008).
Dodd and Supa (2014) offered empirical evidence on the positive effects of CSA on
purchase intentions when people have the same opinion on the issue with which CSA
practices identify.
However, given that PCI is a cognitive association, it may not be displayed directly
in individuals’ purchase behavior. Scholars have shed light on two different dimen-
sions of brand loyalty: attitudinal loyalty and purchase loyalty (Bandyopadhyay &
Martell, 2007; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). While attitudinal loyalty describes indi-
viduals’ favorable attitudes and nonspecific willingness to purchase products of a cer-
tain brand (Bandyopadhyay & Martell, 2007), purchase loyalty can be regarded as
repeated purchasing behavior or specific plans for future purchasing behavior
(Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Previous research has posited that attitudinal loyalty
predicts actual purchase behavior, which can lead to purchase loyalty. Accordingly, we
proposed Hypotheses 4 and 5:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): PCI is related positively to the public’s attitudinal loyalty

(H4a) and purchase loyalty (H4b) to the company.
Hypothesis 5 (H5): Attitudinal loyalty to a company is related positively to pur-
chase loyalty.

A theoretical model is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.  Theoretical model.

Park and Jiang 9

Method
Survey Procedure
To test the hypotheses proposed, this study used an online survey administered via
Qualtrics. Survey participants (N = 960) were recruited through an online labor mar-
ket service, Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) with a cash incentive of $0.50 (per
participant). Current research has indicated that MTurk data can be considered a viable
alternative to student samples or panel data from professional marketing research
companies when testing theory-based relationships (Kees et al., 2017). Individuals
who wished to participate in this study signed up on MTurk voluntarily, which distrib-
uted the survey link. Once potential participants had signed up, they were presented
with a consent form. On agreeing to participate in the online survey, the participants
were asked a screening question. Because the questionnaire included items related to
social media primarily, potential participants were allowed to move on to the main
survey section only if they used social media at least once a week.

CSA Priming Process

Before answering the main questionnaire, participants read instructions related to
three CSA practices in which actual corporations engaged to help the participants
understand the nature of CSA. Then, participants were asked to select one corporation
from the following list—Ben and Jerry’s, Hallmark Cards, Levi Strauss & Co.,
Microsoft, Amazon, Barilla, Ford, Starbucks, Chick-fil-A, Papa John’s, Applebee’s,
Denny’s, and Nike (as cited in https://www.adweek.com/digital/the-new-corporate-
social-responsibility-company-stances-on-controversial-issues/). If participants were
not familiar with the CSA activities of any corporation in the above list, they were
asked to think of a real corporation that they know engages in CSA practices. Once the
corporation was selected or decided on, our participants were instructed to briefly
explain in separate text boxes the sociopolitical issue(s) the corporation advocates. If
a participant could not think of a corporation that practices CSA, she or he was directed
to exit the survey.

Sample Profile
A total of 960 social media users who reside in the United States participated in this
survey. The average age of the participants was 35.67 years (SD = 11.83). Of the
participants, 56% were females (n = 538) and 43.8% were males (n = 420), and
0.2% (n = 2) preferred not to specify their gender. Among them, 74.5% were Whites
(non-Hispanic), followed by 9.8% African Americans, 6.7% Hispanic Americans,
6.4% Asian or Pacific Islanders, and 2.7% multiracials. In total, 30.7% of participants
had an annual household income of $50,000 to $79,999. As for highest level of edu-
cation, 92.1% of our participants had college experience. See the complete partici-
pants’ profile in Table 1.
10 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Table 1.  Sample Characteristics (N = 960).

Demographic characteristics Frequency Percentage

Gender
 Male 420 43.8
 Female 538 56.0
  Prefer not to specify 2 0.2
Age-group, years
 18-25 149 15.5
 26-30 253 26.4
 31-40 326 34.0
 41-50 107 11.1
 50+ 125 13.0
Ethnicity
  White (non-Hispanic) 715 74.5
  Hispanic American 64 6.7
  African American 94 9.8
  Native American/Asian American/Pacific Islander 61 6.4
  Two or more races 26 2.7
Education
  Some high school or less 3 0.3
  High school graduate or equivalent 73 7.6
  Some college but no degree 184 19.2
  Associate degree in college (2-year) 125 13.0
  Bachelor’s degree in college (4-year) 402 41.9
  Master’s degree 132 13.8
  Doctoral degree 25 2.6
  Professional degree (JD, MD) 16 1.7
Household income, $
  <10,000 42 4.4
 10,000-19,999 53 5.5
 20,000-29,999 108 11.3
 30,000-39,999 120 12.5
 40,000-49,999 116 12.1
 50,000-59,999 136 14.2
 60,000-69,999 81 8.4
 70,000-79,999 78 8.1
 80,000-89,999 53 5.5
 90,000-99,999 63 6.6
 100,000-149,999 81 8.4
  ≥150,000 29 3.0

Measures
All main variables were measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale (e.g., from 1 =
strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Table 2 shows the correlations among the
main variables.
Park and Jiang 11

Table 2.  Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (N = 960).

Correlations

Variables Minimum Maximum M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Corporate issue 1 7 5.66 (1.31) 1  

identification
2. Functional 1 7 4.21 (1.71) .11*** 1  
engagement
3. Emotional 1 7 4.42 (1.59) .13*** .82*** 1  
engagement
4. Communal 1 7 4.27 (1.69) .12*** .91*** .85*** 1  
engagement
5. Public-company 1 7 4.43 (1.61) .20*** .71*** .57*** .71*** 1  
identification
6.  Attitudinal loyalty 1 7 4.53 (1.62) .18*** .70*** .56*** .69*** .86*** 1  
7.  Purchase loyalty 1 7 4.86 (1.56) .21*** .62*** .47*** .62*** .80*** .89*** 1

Note. Variables 2 to 4: social media engagement; Variables 6 and 7: brand loyalty.

***p < .001.

Corporate Issue Identification.  In the context of CSA, this study measures individuals’
perception of how clearly a company identifies with a societal-political issue that it
advocates. We modified previous items in measuring issue identification from Bliuc,
McGarty, Reynolds, & Muntele 2007). An example item included “This company
defines itself as a supporter of the issue” (Cronbach’s α = .92, M = 5.66, SD = 1.31).

Brand Community Engagement.  We revised Lim et al.’s scale (2015) to measure social
media brand community in this study. Listing the items, we asked the participants to
indicate their willingness to carry out each social media engagement activity on the
list, based on their perception of the company’s CSA communication via social media.
Functional engagement was measured by four items, such as “Retweeting or reply to
others’ posts” (Cronbach’s α = .93, M = 4.21, SD = 1.71). An example of emotional
engagement item included “Posting my feelings in real-time social media conversa-
tion” (Cronbach’s α = .90, M = 4.42, SD = 1.59). This study measured communal
engagement with four items, for instance, “Sharing my opinions about the company
and its activities with other social media users of the community” (Cronbach’s α =
.92, M = 4.27, SD = 1.69).

Public-Company Identification.  We adopted five items from previous studies to measure

participants’ level of PCI (Kim, 2019; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Pérez & Rodriguez del
Bosque, 2015) and asked participants to indicate to what extent they agree with each
item, thinking of the company they selected. An example of the items was, “I strongly
identify with this company” (Cronbach’s α = .94, M = 4.43, SD = 1.61).

Brand Loyalty.  Following the categorization discussed above, this study measured
two different types of brand loyalty (i.e., attitudinal loyalty and purchase loyalty).
12 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Measurement items were used after revising some preexisting items (Chaudhuri &
Holbrook, 2001; Laroche et al., 2012; Richard, 2013). Attitudinal loyalty was mea-
sured by seven items, such as “I am committed to this brand” (Cronbach’s α = .95,
M = 4.53, SD = 1.62). Purchase loyalty was measured by five items, for example,
“I will buy these brands the next time I buy clothes or underwear” (Cronbach’s α =
.94, M = 4.86, SD = 1.56).

Control Variables. Based on related prior literature and the results of our preliminary
tests, we controlled for eight variables in this study: age, race, income, education, social
media active use, CSA familiarity, previous attitude toward the company, and issue
congruency. In terms of participants’ issue congruency, previous research has suggested
that individuals are more likely to have a positive attitude toward a corporation that
shares the participants’ stance on a social issue (Dodd & Supa, 2014; Tuškej et al.,
2013). This study conducted a series of hierarchical linear regression analyses to exam-
ine how demographic and other control variables may influence the relationships
between the measured variables in the hypothetical model. Results of the analyses
revealed the significant predictors for perceptions of corporations’ issue identification
on social media engagement (βage = −.09, t = −3.18, p < .01; βrace = −.09, t = −3.27,
p < .01; βincome = −.06, t = −2.04, p < .05; βCSA familiarity = .13, t = 4.81, p < .001;
βprevious attitude toward the company = .33, t = 10.47, p < .001; βsocial media active use = .29, t = 10.34,
p < .001; βissue congruency = .08, t = 2.51, p < .05), PCI (βage = −.07, t = −3.49, p < .001;
p < .05; βeducation = .07, t = 3.55, p < .001; βprevious attitude toward the company = .37, t = 15.60, p <
.001; βsocial media active use = −.09, t = −4.26, p < .001; βissue congruency = .13, t = 5.71,
p < .001), attitudinal loyalty (βeducation = .04, t = 2.52, p < .05; βCSA familiarity = .06, t = 3.84,
p < .001; βprevious attitude toward the company = .22, t = 10.05, p < .001; βsocial media active use =
−.05, t = −3.10, p < .01), and purchase loyalty (βage = −.04, t = −2.92, p < .001;
βrace = −.03, t = −1.98, p < .05; βprevious attitude toward the company = .17, t = 8.11, p < .001;
βissue congruency = .08, t = 4.68, p < .001).

Pilot Test
Prior to the main survey, we conducted a pilot test with a draft version of the ques-
tionnaire. We recruited a total of 108 participants using MTurk with a $0.50 incen-
tive for each response. The measurement items for the main variables and control
variables were then finalized based on a series of reliability tests. We also added
questions for quality verifications and revised the instructions for the priming pro-
cess. The responses collected by this pilot test are not included in the final data set
of this study.

Data Analysis
This study employed a two-step structural equation modeling (SEM) with the AMOS
24.0 program to analyze the collected data. This study tested the second-order mea-
surement model to measure social media engagement with three subdimensions (i.e.,
Park and Jiang 13

functional, emotional, and communal engagements), following the prior theoretical

conceptualizations of the constructs. Control variables (i.e., demographics, social
media active use, issue congruency, and CSA familiarity) were added, and then, the
final SEM model was tested.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Measurement Model Test

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed the conceptual structures of the main
variables—corporate issue identification, social media engagement (i.e., functional
engagement, emotional engagement, and communal engagement), PCI, and brand
loyalty (i.e., attitudinal loyalty, purchase loyalty). In accordance with previous litera-
ture, social media engagement and brand loyalty formed a second-order construct
with their respective underlying first-order factors. The model demonstrated an
acceptable data-model fit (comparative fit index [CFI] = .95, Tucker-Lewis index
[TLI] = .94, normed fit index [NFI] = .94, incremental fit index [IFI] = .95; root
mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .064; 90% CI [.062, .067], χ2 =
2219.87, df = 446, χ2/df = 4.98, N = 960). To evaluate SEM model fit, Hu and
Bentler (1999) recommended using combined criteria with at least two of the accept-
able levels of model fit indexes (i.e., CFI ≥ .95, IFI ≥ .90, NFI ≥ .90, TLI ≥ .90,
RMSEA ≤ .06). Detailed results of our CFA are displayed in Table 3.

Results
Test of Hypotheses
We performed SEM to test the proposed hypotheses. In addition to the main variables
examined in CFA, we included several control variables—issue congruency, social
media active use, CSA familiarity, previous brand attitude, and demographics (i.e.,
age, education, income, and race)—in the final SEM analysis. The hypothesized struc-
tural model also achieved a good fit with the data: CFI = .94, TLI = .93, NFI = .92,
IFI = .94, RMSEA = .059 (90% CI [.057, .061], χ2 = 3151.16, df = 733, χ2/df = 4.30,
N = 960). The results are also summarized in Figure 2 and Table 4.
H1 predicted a positive association between corporate issue identification and indi-
viduals’ social media brand community engagement. As seen in Figure 2 and Table 4,
individuals’ levels of perception of corporate issue identification had a significant rela-
tionship with their brand community engagement (β = .20, p < .001). Thus, H1 was
supported.
In H2, this study posited a direct relationship between corporate issue identification
and PCI. However, the analyses found no significant evidence supporting the associa-
tion between these two variables (β = .04, p = n.s.), rejecting H2.
H3 claimed that the public’s social media engagement would be positively associ-
ated with their PCI. The results suggested that individuals’ willingness to engage in
brand community on social media was significantly connected to PCI (β = .57, p <
.001). Thus, H3 was supported.
14 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)
Table 3.  Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Average Variance Extracted, and Construct
Reliability.
Variables
Corporate issue identification
(α = .92, AVE = .57,
CR = .84)
Functional engagement
(α = .93, AVE = .58,
CR = .84)
Emotional engagement
(α = .90, AVE = .43,
CR = .75)
Communal engagement
(α = .92, AVE = .58,
CR = .84)
Public-company identification
(α = .94, AVE = .73,
CR = .87)
Scale items Loadings
This company defines itself as a supporter .61***
of the issue.
This company is confident that the political/ .75***
social option it has chosen is the best.
This company is confident that it is a real .79***
supporter of the political/social issue.
This company is confident that being a .86***
supporter of the political/social issue it
advocates really reflects its ideas.
Retweet or reply to others’ posts. .78***
Share the brand-related videos or photos .83***
on social media.
Bring up things I have seen or heard outside .66***
social media in conversations on social
media.
Use trending words such as hashtags while .76***
using social media.
Poste my feelings in real-time social media .68***
conversation.
Poste my feelings when I like/dislike the .57***
corporations’ activities I experienced.
Quote from the company when it was good .80***
or witty.
Express my feelings about the company and .55***
its activities.
Share my opinions about the company and .61***
its activities with other social media users
of the community.
Share the company’s promotional message. .81***
Contribute to the brand community adding .80***
useful information.
Interact with other brand community users .80***
using the hashtags related to the company
and its activities.
I strongly identify with this company. .77***
This company fits my personality. .76***
I like saying that I am a customer of this .80***
company.
I feel closely linked to this company. .74***
I have a strong feeling of membership to .74***
this company.
(continued)
Park and Jiang 15

Table 3. (continued)

Variables Scale items Loadings

Attitudinal loyalty (α = .95,
AVE = .96, CR = .89)
Purchase loyalty (α = .94,
AVE = .79, CR = .89)
I am committed to this brand .79***
I would be willing to pay a higher price for .69***
this brand over other brands.
I consider myself to be loyal to the brand. .79***
I am willing to pay more for this brand. .71***
I tend to use this brand habitually. .70***
I will recommend this brand to other .81***
people.
I will continue to browse the products of .69***
this brand.
I will buy this brand the next time I buy. .86***
I intend to keep purchasing this brand. .85***
If the brand is not available at the store, .64***
I would buy the same brand from some
other store.
I would consider purchasing from this brand .77***
in the next 3 months.
I would consider purchasing from this brand .83***
in the next year; for this purchase, I will
buy from this brand.

Note. CFI=.95, TLI=.94, NFI=.94, IFI=.95, RMSEA =.064 (90% CI [.062, .067], χ2 = 2219.87, df = 446,
χ2/df = 4.98, N = 960). AVE = average variance extracted, CR = construct reliability.
***p < .001.

Figure 2.  The hypothesized structural model with standardized path coefficients.
Note. CFI = .94, TLI = .93, NFI = .92, IFI = .94, RMSEA = .059 (90% CI [.057, .061]), χ2 = 3151.16,
df = 733, χ2/df = 4.30, n = 960. CI = Bias-corrected 95% bootstrapped confidence interval based on
5,000 resamples. Issue congruency, social media active use, CSA familiarity, previous brand attitude, and
demographics (i.e., age, education, income, race, and gender) were controlled for in SEM analysis.
***p < .001.
16 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Table 4.  Structural Equation Modeling Results.

Standard loadings SE z-Scores

Direct effects
  H1: corporate issue identification → social 0.20*** 0.05 4.30
media engagement
  H2: corporate issue identification → public- 0.04 0.03 1.67
company identification
  H3: social media engagement → public- 0.57*** 0.03 21.97
company identification
  H4a: public-company identification → 0.85*** 0.03 27.54
attitudinal loyalty
H4b: public-company identification → purchase −0.10 0.06 −1.77
loyalty
  H5: attitudinal loyalty → purchase loyalty 0.94*** 0.06 15.10
Indirect effects
  Corporate issue identification → social media 0.11*** 0.02  
engagement → public-company identification
  Social media engagement → public-company 0.48*** 0.01  
identification → attitudinal loyalty
  Social media engagement → public-company −0.6 0.02  
identification → purchase loyalty
  Public-company identification → attitudinal 0.80*** 0.02  
loyalty → purchase loyalty

Note. CFI = .94, TLI = .93, NFI = .92, IFI = .94, RMSEA = .059 (90% CI [.057, .061]), χ2 = 3151.16,
df = 733, χ2/df = 4.30, N = 960). CI: Bias-corrected 95% bootstrapped confidence interval based on
5,000 resamples.
***p < .001.

In addition, this study predicted that PCI would be positively related to the public’s
attitudinal loyalty (H4a) and purchase loyalty (H4b) to the company engaging in CSA
practices. The link between PCI and attitudinal loyalty yielded a significant path coef-
ficient (β = .85, p < .001), while the path between PCI and purchase loyalty turned
out to be not significant (β= −.10, p = n.s.). Therefore, H4a was supported, but H4b
was rejected.
In H5, this study predicted a positive relationship between attitudinal loyalty and
purchase loyalty. The results of this study showed a significant path from attitudinal
loyalty to purchase loyalty (β = .94, p < .001), supporting H5.

Discussion
This study examined CSA practices as powerful signals that disclose corporations’
identities to attract the attention of the public who shares that identity and is thus will-
ing to support the corporation emotionally and behaviorally. Rooted in the signaling
and social identity theories, this study proposed a model that tested the effects of CSA
Park and Jiang 17

on brand loyalty. In this respect, the findings of the study revealed the way in which
the public receives, verifies, accepts, and acts on the corporation’s identity through its
CSA engagement signals.

CSA as a Corporate Identity Signal

Previous research suggested that corporations that deliver clear and specific messages
indicative of their stance on sociopolitical issues can cultivate a positive image with
their stakeholders (Leitch & Davenport, 2011; Robinson & Eilert, 2018). Consistent
with these findings, this study suggested that the clearer and more specific corporate
messages were (i.e., strong issue identification), the more willing the public was to
engage in brand community activities on social media. As the signaling theory indi-
cated (Connelly et al., 2011), an effective corporate signal can attract target audiences’
attention. The findings of the study confirmed the role of CSA as an effective signal to
generate public interest. However, this study failed to identify a significant relation-
ship between a corporation’s issue identification and PCI.

Brand Community Engagement as a Key Driver of Public-Company

Identification
This study sheds light on the role of brand community engagement on social media as
a collective signal verification process. Previous research suggested that people engage
in a brand community on social media to share information and participate in a value
co-creation process through communication with other users of the same corporation’s
products and services and the corporation as well (Brodie et al., 2013). As discussed
above, this study also found that people got involved with social media brand com-
munities in accordance with their perceived corporate social issue identification. In the
process of brand community engagement on social media, people could receive more
information about the corporation, increase their emotional attachment, and connect
more with others who shared the same opinions on the issue at hand (Lim et al., 2015).
In this respect, the present study discovered a positive association between brand com-
munity engagement and PCI. These findings reinforce the new theoretical approach
that this study proposed based on the role of brand community engagement in under-
standing the way in which corporations’ definitive sociopolitical stances can lead the
public to have a strong emotional attachment to the company.

Linking Public-Company Identification to Purchase Intention

Previous research showed that people tend to present a self-image that matches that
of a particular brand when a high level of brand preference, brand loyalty, or purchase
intention is present (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2010). Echoing the aforementioned
research, our study also found a significant association between PCI and attitudinal
loyalty. In particular, the results suggested that PCI had a significant relation with
attitudinal loyalty but not purchase loyalty. Given that PCI is often seen as a cognitive
18 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

association (e.g., Tuškej et al., 2013), it may not be directly observable or displayed
in individuals’ purchasing behavior. As previous research noted (Chaudhuri &
Holbrook, 2001), purchase intention should be regarded as a result of a complex
assessment of attitudinal and behavioral factors, and this study did yield empirical
evidence uncovering the indirect relationship between PCI and purchase loyalty
mediated by attitudinal loyalty.

Connecting Corporate Issue Identification to Purchase Loyalty: Social

Media Engagement, Public-Company Identification, and Attitudinal
Loyalty
Previous research posited that a corporation’s social issue engagement can have posi-
tive effects on their financial outcomes (e.g., Dodd & Supa, 2014, Nalick et al., 2016).
This study enriched our understanding of these connections by revealing the positive
mediating effect of social media engagement, PCI, and attitudinal loyalty on the rela-
tionship between corporate issue identification and purchase loyalty. It identified the
mediating effect of social media brand community engagement on the link between
CSA activity and individuals’ identification with the company. As this study predicted,
individuals might decode the identity a corporation signaled through its CSA activities
by engaging in social media brand communities functionally, emotionally, and com-
munally. As a consequence, they accepted the signaled corporate identity and identi-
fied themselves with the corporation. The study showed that social media engagement
can be indirectly associated with attitudinal loyalty though PCI. Yet the mediating role
of PCI was not significant for the relationship between social media engagement and
purchase loyalty. As mentioned above, although PCI showed a significant correlation
with attitudinal loyalty, it was not directly related to purchase loyalty. Instead, PCI was
related to purchase loyalty when the relationship is mediated by attitudinal loyalty.

Theoretical Implications
Although increased attention has been given to the effects of CSA on a corporation’s
financial outcomes (e.g., Dodd & Supa, 2014, 2015; Nalick et al., 2016), this study
found scant academic effort to investigate subliminal mechanisms that address the
way in which a corporation’s political engagement attracts public attention and creates
positive relationships. Applying the signaling and social identity theories, this study
investigated the way CSA was associated with brand loyalty. The findings showed the
way corporations signaled their identities with CSA, and the public then decoded and
accepted those signals. This study has enhanced our theoretical understanding of iden-
tity signaling by applying the theories in a CSA communication context.
This study also showed the way the current social media environment mediated
or maximized CSA’s positive effects in creating PCI. Despite previous studies’
attempts to investigate corporate nonmarket activities based on the signaling and
social identity theories, there has been little academic attention given to furthering
Park and Jiang 19

our understanding of the way in which people interpret and accept the signals.
Hence, this study applied the two theories more precisely by adding the public’s
social media brand community endeavors as a collective encoding process. In this
respect, this study’s findings will help future researchers further develop theory-
based models for CSA communication.

Practical Implications
Business communication researchers are recognizing the importance of transparent
communication in strengthening relationships with stakeholders and fostering other
positive organizational outcomes (Koskela, 2018), such as PCI. An adequate flow of
CSA information from a company allows its stakeholders to learn of and understand it
as a real, strong supporter for the sociopolitical issues it advocates (see Fortunato
et al., 2017, p. 199). More future research is thus needed to examine what accounts for
effective CSA communication.
Insights from the findings of this study can be used to help organizations’ decision
makers think more about taking a stand on sociopolitical issues. Organizational lead-
ers should proceed cautiously and consider both the potential benefits and the risks
associated with such an undertaking. A corporation may experience increased support
from consumers who agree with the political position it takes, but it may simultane-
ously experience decreased support from those who disagree. In addition, with changes
in social circumstances, corporations should reflect more on their fundamental roles as
members of a civil society. In addition, the findings of this study attested to the impor-
tance of social media brand community in building and managing quality relationships
with stakeholders. Corporations should consider what social issue they align with and
decide on a marketing strategy that would engage their social media community,
thereby transforming members of the public into its active supporters.

Limitations and Future Research Suggestions

This study has a methodological limitation that needs to be addressed in future
research. First, this study adopted an online survey method via MTurk to test the
hypotheses on CSA. Although the survey with MTurk may facilitate data collection
with time and cost efficiency, scholars have been concerned that the survey sample
from MTurk may have a negative effect on sample composition, data quality, and
substantive results (S. M. Smith et al., 2016). For instance, S. M. Smith et al. (2016)
suggested that MTurk respondents spent less time to answer questions and non-U.S.
MTurkers had more duplicate IP addresses than a regular online panel. Considering
those possible limitations, this study adopted additional processes to improve data
quality, including a pilot test, adding attention checking items, and removing respon-
dents from duplicate IP addresses. In addition, this study specified the target social
media users who are familiar with any CSA activities, asking the sociopolitical issues
advocated by the company each respondent selected. Responses that do not suggest
the exact CSA issue were removed from the final data set.
20 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Next, the study primed survey participants to think of an actual company and
asked them to indicate their willingness to engage in company-related activities,
including social media brand community engagement and purchase intention.
However, as previous research has noted, the effects of corporations’ nonmarket
activities can represent long-term competitive advantages (Weinzimmer & Esken,
2016). Therefore, the one-time survey this study used can only investigate the lim-
ited effects of CSA but may miss the actual context. Accordingly, future research
should consider adopting an advanced methodology that captures the social context
of CSA in the long term.
Finally, in testing our proposed model, we controlled for issue congruency, that
is, the degree to which our participants shared the companies’ stances on the social
issues. It does not necessarily mean that in this study we focused only on the atti-
tudes, behaviors, and arguments of those who agreed with the companies’ stances.
What we focused on in this study is how individuals’ perceptions of how clearly a
company identifies with a societal-political issue (i.e., issue identification) are
related to their social media engagement behaviors, the degree to which they iden-
tify with the company, and their attitudinal and purchase loyalty toward the com-
pany, when the degree to which our participants shared the companies’ stances on
the social issues, that is, issue congruency, is controlled. In future research, issue
congruency should be further examined as related to the variables in our proposed
model, such as how it leads to social media engagement, PCI, attitudinal loyalty, and
purchase loyalty.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

ORCID iDs
Keonyoung Park   https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8268-620X
Hua Jiang   https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2418-066X

References
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), 20-39. https://doi.org/10.2307/258189
Balmer, J. M. (2001). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing: Seeing
through the fog. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3-4), 248-291. https://doi.org/10.
1108/03090560110694763
Bandyopadhyay, S., & Martell, M. (2007). Does attitudinal loyalty influence behavioral loy-
alty? A theoretical and empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 14(1),
35-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2006.03.002
Park and Jiang 21

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for

understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76-
88. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609
Bliuc, A. M., McGarty, C., Reynolds, K., & Muntele, D. (2007). Opinion-based group mem-
bership as a predictor of commitment to political action. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 37(1), 19-32.
Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual
brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105-114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand
affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81-93.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255
Chen, G. M. (2011). Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter
use gratifies a need to connect with others. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 755-762.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.023
Chen, J., Zhang, C., & Xu, Y. (2009). The role of mutual trust in building members’ loyalty to
a C2C platform provider. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14(1), 147-171.
https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415140105
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A
review and assessment. Journal of management, 37(1), 39-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206310388419
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2011). An exploration of the effects of victim visuals on
perceptions and reactions to crisis events. Public Relations Review, 37(2), 115-120. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.01.006
Dodd, M. D., & Supa, D. W. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring corporate social advo-
cacy communication: Examining the impact on corporate financial performance. Public
Relations Journal, 8(3), 2-23.
Dodd, M. D., & Supa, D. W. (2015). Testing the viability of corporate social advocacy as a
predictor of purchase intention. Communication Research Reports, 32(4), 287-293. https://
doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2015.1089853
Donath, J. (2007). Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
13(1), 231-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00394.x
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate
social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 12(1), 8-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and mem-
ber identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239-263. https://doi.org/10.
2307/2393235
Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the Internet age.
MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sos160
Einwiller, S. A., Fedorikhin, A., Johnson, A. R., & Kamins, M. A. (2006). Enough is
enough! When identification no longer prevents negative corporate associations. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 185-195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092
070305284983
Fortunato, J. A., Gigliotti, R. A., & Ruben, B. D. (2017). Racial incidents at the University
of Missouri: The value of leadership communication and stakeholder relationships.
International Journal of Business Communication, 54(2), 199-209. https://doi.org/10.
1177/2329488416687056
22 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Frederick, W. C. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: Deep roots, flourishing growth, prom-
ising future. In A. Crane, A. Williams, D. Matten, J. Moon & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 522-531). Oxford University Press.
Frynas, J. G., Child, J., & Tarba, S. Y. (2017). Non-market social and political strategies: New
integrative approaches and interdisciplinary borrowings. British Journal of Management,
28(4), 559-574. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12253
Fuchs, C. (2015). Social media and the public sphere. TripleC: Open Access Journal for a
Global Sustainable Information Society, 12(1), 57-101. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.
v12i1.552
Gleeson, S. (2018, September 8). Study: Nike online sales surge 31 percent days after Colin
Kaepernick ad released. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2018/09/08/
study-nike-online-sales-up-after-colin-kaepernick-ad/1240378002/
Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive
advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society, 39(3), 254-280. https://
doi.org/10.1177/000765030003900302
Guthey, E., & Morsing, M. (2014). CSR and the mediated emergence of strategic ambiguity.
Journal of Business Ethics, 120(4), 555-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-2005-7
Habibi, M. R., Laroche, M., & Richard, M. O. (2014). The roles of brand community and
community engagement in building brand trust on social media. Computers in Human
Behavior, 37(August), 152-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.016
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and
image. European Journal of marketing, 31(5-6), 356-365. https://doi.org/10.1108/0309
0569710167583
Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Hoyer, W. D. (2009). Social identity and the service-profit chain.
Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 38-54. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.2.38
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Jenkins, H. (2014). Participatory culture: From co-creating brand meaning to changing the
world. GfK Marketing Intelligence Review, 6(2), 34-39. https://doi.org/10.2478/gfk-
mir-2014-0096
Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and econom-
ics. Academy of management review, 20(2), 404-437. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.
9507312924
Kees, J., Berry, C., Burton, S., & Sheehan, K. (2017). An analysis of data quality: Professional
panels, student subject pools, and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Journal of Advertising,
46(1), 141-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1269304
Kim, S. (2019). The process model of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication:
CSR communication and its relationship with consumers’ CSR knowledge, trust, and cor-
porate reputation perception. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(4), 1143-1159. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-017-3433-6
Koskela, M. (2018). Disclosing principles of IR communication: Rhetorical moves for con-
structing transparency. International Journal of Business Communication, 55(2), 164-193.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488417735645
Kozinets, R. V. (2014). Social brand engagement: A new idea. GfK Marketing Intelligence
Review, 6(2), 8-15. https://doi.org/10.2478/gfkmir-2014-0091
Kuenzel, S., & Halliday, S. V. (2010). The chain of effects from reputation and brand person-
ality congruence to brand loyalty: The role of brand identification. Journal of Targeting,
Park and Jiang 23

Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 18(3-4), 167-176. https://doi.org/10.1057/

jt.2010.15
Lampel, J., & Shamsie, J. (2000). Critical push: Strategies for creating momentum in the motion
picture industry. Journal of Management, 26(2), 233-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-
2063(99)00044-6
Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., Richard, M. O., & Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012). The effects of
social media based brand communities on brand community markers, value creation prac-
tices, brand trust and brand loyalty. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1755-1767.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.016
Leitch, S., & Davenport, S. (2011). Corporate identity as an enabler and constraint on the pursuit
of corporate objectives. European Journal of Marketing, 45(9-10), 1501-1520. https://doi.
org/10.1108/03090561111151862
Lim, J. S., Hwang, Y., Kim, S., & Biocca, F. A. (2015). How social media engagement leads to
sports channel loyalty: Mediating roles of social presence and channel commitment. Computers
in Human Behavior, 46(May), 158-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.013
Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit orga-
nizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 337-
353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.x
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the refor-
mulated model of organizational identification. Journal of organizational Behavior, 13(2),
103-123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202
McEwen, W. J. (2005). Married to the brand: Why consumers bond with some brands for life.
New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. H. S. (2012). How companies cultivate relationships with publics on
social network sites: Evidence from China and the United States. Public Relations Review,
38(5), 723-730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.10.006
Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. H. S. (2015). Infusing social media with humanity: Corporate charac-
ter, public engagement, and relational outcomes. Public Relations Review, 41(3), 395-403.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.02.005
Morsing, M., Schultz, M., & Nielsen, K. U. (2008). The “Catch 22” of communicating CSR:
Findings from a Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 97-111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260701856608
Nalick, M., Josefy, M., Zardkoohi, A., & Bierman, L. (2016). Corporate sociopolitical involve-
ment: A reflection of whose preferences? Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(4),
384-403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0033
Pérez, A., & Rodriguez del Bosque, I. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and customer
loyalty: Exploring the role of identification, satisfaction and type of company. Journal of
Services Marketing, 29(1), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-10-2013-0272
Ramaswami, A., Dreher, G. F., Bretz, R., & Wiethoff, C. (2010). Gender, mentoring, and career
success: The importance of organizational context. Personnel Psychology, 63(2), 385-405.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01174.x
Robinson, S., & Eilert, M. (2018). The role of message specificity in corporate social respon-
sibility communication. Journal of Business Research, 90(C), 260-268. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.028
Roncha, A., & Radclyffe-Thomas, N. (2016). How TOMS’ “one day without shoes” campaign
brings stakeholders together and co-creates value for the brand using Instagram as a plat-
form. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 20(3), 300-321. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JFMM-10-2015-0082
24 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges
to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 849-873. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0149206305279601
Schau, H. J., Muñiz, A. M., Jr., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices create
value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30-51. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.5.30
Scheufele, D. A., Nisbet, M. C., & Brossard, D. (2003). Pathways to political participation?
Religion, communication contexts, and mass media. International Journal of Public
Opinion Research, 15(3), 300-324.
Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy
of Management review, 25(1), 43-62. https://doi.org/10.2307/259262
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer
reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225-243.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.2.225.18838
Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D. J., Johar, J. S., & Tidwell, J. (2008). Effect of self-congruity with spon-
sorship on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 61(10), 1091-1097. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.022
Smith, L. M., Zhu, L., Lerman, K., & Kozareva, Z. (2013, September 8-14). The role of social
media in the discussion of controversial topics [Conference session]. Social Computing
(SocialCom), 2013 International Conference on Social Computing, Alexandria, VA, United
States (pp. 236-243). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SocialCom.2013.41
Smith, S. M., Roster, C. A., Golden, L. L., & Albaum, G. S. (2016). A multi-group analysis
of online survey respondent data quality: Comparing a regular USA consumer panel to
MTurk samples. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3139-3148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2015.12.002
Spence, M. (2002). Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. American
Economic Review, 92(3), 434-459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-008-9078-9
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S.
Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Nelson-
Hall. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203505984-16
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In J. T. Jost
& J. Sidanius (Eds.), Key readings in social psychology. Political psychology: Key read-
ings (pp. 276-293). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446263471.n60
Tufekci, Z., & Wilson, C. (2012). Social media and the decision to participate in political pro-
test: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 363-379. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01629.x
Tuškej, U., Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2013). The role of consumer-brand identification in
building brand relationships. Journal of business research, 66(1), 53-59. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.022
Warner, A. G., Fairbank, J. F., & Steensma, H. K. (2006). Managing uncertainty in a formal
standards-based industry: A real options perspective on acquisition timing. Journal of
Management, 32(2), 279-298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305280108
Weinzimmer, L. G., & Esken, C. A. (2016). Risky business: Taking a stand on social issues.
Business Horizons, 59(3), 331-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.01.007
Whan Park, C., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand
attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two
critical brand equity drivers. Journal of marketing, 74(6), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmkg.74.6.1
Park and Jiang 25

Author Biographies
Keonyoung Park is a doctoral student in S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications,
Syracuse University. Park’s primary research interests include social media communication,
corporate social responsibility, corporate social advocacy, activism, global public relations, and
corporate communication.
Hua Jiang, PhD, is an associate professor in the public relations department of S.I. Newhouse
School of Public Communications, Syracuse University. Jiang’s primary research interests
include employee communication, social media engagement, corporate social responsibility/
corporate social/political advocacy, relationship/reputation management, and mental health
campaigns.