Executive summary “Speaking candidly: how managers’ political stances affect consumers’ brand attitudes”

Citation

(2015), "Executive summary “Speaking candidly: how managers’ political stances affect consumers’ brand attitudes”", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-08-2015-913

Executive summary “Speaking candidly: how managers’ political stances affect consumers’ brand attitudes”

Article Type: Executive summary and implications for managers and executives From: Journal of Product & Brand Management, Volume 24, Issue 5

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the material present.

Plenty research has examined consumer response to brands which are perceived to have transgressed in some way. It is also suggested that consumer attitudes toward a brand can be affected when managers communicate on factors unrelated to it. The impact is often more profound when the issues concerned are seen as controversial. Different scholars acknowledge the potential consequences when brand attitudes become less favorable. Brand equity is invariably jeopardized, and this will likely harm sales and loyalty.

When a manager voices an opinion on an issue, it is a reflection of his or her ideological beliefs. Ideology helps people to interpret knowledge about the world and discriminate between friends and enemies, for instance. On a simplistic level, someone’s response to a manager’s comments about a particular issue will be determined by whether their own ideology corresponds or contrasts with that of the manager. But the views of a single individual can be influenced by a framework containing multiple ideologies, some of which will invariably conflict with others. In these circumstances, some “psychological discomfort” could occur as the person struggles to determine which belief to use to interpret what the manager has expressed. This dilemma has largely been discounted in the literature, where the onus has been confined to the effects of a single ideology.

To resolve any “cognitive dissonance” that emerges, consumers need to ascertain the degree of fit between the manager’s and their own beliefs. Whether congruence exists will determine if the affective response to the comments made by the manager is either positive or negative. The literature defines “derived anger” as a possible reaction to a manager’s stance when their own ideology stands diametrically opposed to it. But when consumers hold incongruent ideological beliefs, they are more inclined to prioritize those aligned with the manager’s views and derived anger should be relatively low.

When the individual adheres to several ideologies which may cause some conflict, he or she needs to determine which position will influence the response. Scholars have noted the tendency of some consumers to handle their conflicting position by diminishing negative thoughts and amplifying those which are positive. This “overemphasis” is possible only when the consumer subscribes to competing ideologies and might result in stronger overall agreement with the managerial position. One view purports that positive affect toward the manager’s belief is likely to facilitate more favorable views about the manager as a person. This then has implications for consumer attitude toward the brand that the manager is associated with. The term “halo error” is used to describe the effect whereby such favorable or unfavorable impressions are subsequently replicated in how “secondary objects” are judged. People essentially tend to view such objects which are tied to the focal subject in stronger positive or negative terms than when considering secondary entities on an independent basis. The consumer’s ideological position is thus seen as having an indirect impact on brand attitude.

The issue of same-sex marriage is used to illustrate the points made. Morality is typically the main issue surrounding this topic and will determine how consumers might respond to a manager who opposes such liaisons. Consumer support of or opposition to the manager’s standpoint is usually influenced by his or own moral stance on the issue.

Leak et al. propose that two separate ideologies largely provide the frame by which managerial opposition to same-sex marriage will be appraised. These are conservatism-liberalism and religiosity. Consumer belief in the moral legitimacy of such marriages is likely to be unambiguous and constant when these ideologies are used in isolation. But the issue increases in complexity when an individual subscribes to ideologies which are not congruent.

Because conservatives favor sustaining the current social order, opposition to same-sex marriage could be anticipated. On the contrary, the liberal perspective is founded on values like “fairness and reciprocity”. This makes them likely to advocate that same-sex couples should enjoy the same rights and benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.

Religious belief also determines individual response to certain issues. Researchers view this commitment as a continuum ranging from weak to strong. To what extent a person will use faith-related standards to evaluate issues depends on the strength of their religious beliefs. A norm within certain religions is that same-sex marriage is morally unacceptable. Therefore, those strongly committed to their religion would probably react favorably to a manager expressing an opposition to such liaisons.

A consumer’s pre-existing attitude toward the brand can be another influential factor, various studies have found. These are formed through exposure to and experience with the brand. It is assumed that a current positive attitude will lessen any anger derived from disagreement with a manager’s stance. The opposite effect is predicted when the pre-existing attitude is unfavorable.

Investigation of these issues was conducted via a study with 161 undergraduates from a university in Southern USA. The computer-based experiment involved a fictitious scenario in which members of a family-owned business provided support to organizations opposing the legalization of same-sex marriages. Subjects indicated their attitude toward the company at the outset and then again after reading the scenario. Responses to other statements were used to ascertain levels of derived anger, general liberal-conservative beliefs and strength of religious beliefs if they followed a particular religion. The majority of participants indicated involvement with Christianity of some kind.

Analysis confirmed that less anger toward the manager’s stance was evident among subjects holding:

• liberal values and stronger religious beliefs;

• conservative values and weaker religious beliefs; and

• positive pre-existing attitudes toward the brand.

Conservatives with stronger religious beliefs indicated greater levels of derived anger as did liberals whose religious commitment was weaker.

In addition, consumer attitude toward the brand diminished as derived anger increased. It was also found that derived anger influences how the interaction between liberalism-conservatism and religiosity impacts on brand attitude change.

The authors suggest that greater awareness of “ideological undercurrents” in society will help managers ascertain how any pronouncements could affect their business. They also assert that consumers with moderate beliefs are unlikely to display anger or become more negative toward the brand. Managers are therefore urged to target “ideological extremists” with communications aiming to mend the brand’s image. This can be achieved by focusing on any pre-existing favorable views toward the brand and highlighting the company’s positive contributions, such as community programs. Consistently emphasizing constructive brand relationships through marketing activities is advised. This might result in consumers dismissing a manager’s viewpoint as a temporary aberration and help prevent competitors from exploiting the situation for their own gain.

A longitudinal study is recommended so that the impact of value systems and beliefs can be measured over time. This can also help ascertain how long a manager’s ideological stance would remain in public consciousness and the length of time any negative impact on brand attitude is likely to last. Other suggestions for future work include examining the effect if the manager holds some degree of celebrity status and investigating possible media bias in how a manager’s stance on a sensitive issue is reported.

To read the full article, enter 10.1108/JPBM-08-2014-0693 into your search engine.

(A précis of the article “Speaking candidly: how managers’ political stances affect consumers’ brand attitudes”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)