When Corporate Social Advocacy Meets Controversial Celebrity: The Role of Consumer–Brand Congruence and Consumer-Celebrity Congruence

Abstract

This study investigates the role of consumer–brand congruence and consumer–celebrity congruence in the formation of consumer attitudes toward brands and their impact on behavioral intentions within the context of corporate social advocacy (CSA) involving controversial celebrities. Using a U.S. sample drawn from a Qualtrics panel (N = 372), the results of mediation analyses indicate that attitude toward a brand positively mediates the effects of consumer–brand congruence on consumers’ behavioral intentions, including purchase intention, brand preference, and boycott recommendation. The consumer–celebrity congruence moderated the indirect effect of consumer–brand congruence on brand preference and boycott recommendations, but not purchase intention. The findings of this study contribute to the CSA literature and practices by highlighting the role of consumers’ congruence with a controversial celebrity in determining consumers’ behavioral responses to CSA. When brands practice CSA, consumer–brand congruence rather than consumer–celebrity congruence could play a more important role in shaping consumer behaviors.

1. Introduction

In his view of the modern business environment, the CEO of Edelman, a global communication firm, argues that brands are now expected to work outside of their standard commercial interests to take on a more active advocacy role [1]. For the first time ever, a brand’s commitment to stay true to its principles, operate with purpose, and participate in activism, can significantly impact a purchase decision [2]. The 2020 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report: Brands and Racial Justice in the United States shows how impactful decisions made in corner office are on the behaviors of their stakeholders. The report states an organization’s likelihood of gaining (vs. losing) trust is four times greater when it engages in anti-racial justice advocacy [3]. Showing concern for public health is also shown to be impactful, with more than 80% of consumers worldwide stating they expect brands to do the right thing in the face of the current pandemic [3]. As the public’s demand for brand activism has increased, a growing number of companies have started to take public stances on socio-political issues, which scholars define as corporate social advocacy (CSA) [4]. Consumers, particularly millennials and members of Gen Z, expect corporations to take a position on social or political issues and to communicate that position clearly [5]. In 2018, 64 percent of customers across the globe bought or boycotted a company because of its social stance, an increase of 13% compared to the previous year [6].

As the preceding report suggests, to keep up with consumers’ expectations, businesses are speaking about socio-political topics more frequently [7]. However, in the minds of many brands, it has never been more controversial or riskier to take a public position related to activist causes [8,9]. While the expectation is there for companies to take a stand, corporations have found that simply holding a public position does not mean good things come immediately. While Starbucks generated positive headlines when it took a public stand to oppose immigration restrictions by hiring refugees, companies that took the lead in public health initiatives during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic were met with protests, boycotts, and membership cancellations by consumers who believed the subject was contentious [10,11]. Another topic that has elicited a range of opinions from the American public is the Black Lives Matter movement. In support of the Black Lives Matter movement, businesses such as Nike introduced new messages advocating racial justice, even as customers and critics voiced concern potentially hypocritical actions, such as a lack of board members representing people of color and controversial business practices [12].

In an effort to further align itself with the BLM cause, Nike chose former National Football League quarterback, Colin Kaepernick, to be the face of the company’s campaign marking the 30th anniversary of the “Just Do It” slogan. The decision was viewed by some as controversial because of Kaepernick’s decision to first sit and then kneel during the U.S. national anthem, beginning in the 2016 NFL season [13]. Reactions to the decision varied greatly with some criticizing Nike’s choice, while others supported the company’s decision to highlight Kaepernick, viewing Nike as a champion for social justice [14]. The subsequent fallout from Nike’s decision created a large divide in the national conversation, with people reacting in a number of ways [13]. Those who supported Nike’s decision indicated that they would purchase more Nike products, whereas many of those who opposed the choice threatened to boycott Nike and posted pro-boycott messages on social media [14].

The response by the public to Nike’s decision should inform companies who are looking to align with a cause. When brands become social activists, the basic motivations of the company are examined more closely, and, depending on the assessment, damage to profits margins and reductions in brand equity may occur [15]. When exposed to brand activism, consumers seem to sometimes have trouble believing companies are being genuine [9,15,16]. Even more potentially worrisome for a company, according to recent empirical work, when customers disagree with a company’s political stance, their positive attitude toward the company decreases [17].

Despite increased controversy over CSA and the mixed consumer responses to activist campaigns, little is known about the role of controversial celebrities in shaping consumers’ attitudinal and behavioral responses to a company’s CSA. Using congruence theory as a guide, the purpose of this study is to investigate the role of consumer–company congruence and consumer–controversial celebrity congruence in shaping the attitudes toward a company and the subsequent behavioral intentions, including purchase intentions, brand preference, and boycott recommendations. Specifically, we investigate how consumers associate themselves with Nike and Colin Kaepernick. Then, we examine how the consumer associations impact consumer attitude towards Nike and the resulting behavioral intentions.

This study aims to contribute to theory building and professional practices in the context of CSA. Theoretically, this research will contribute to the literature of CSA by (1) incorporating congruence theory into the current body of work to help better understand the role of congruence in the relationship consumers have with brands and product endorsers, (2) examining the effect of a controversial campaign featuring a controversial celebrity (the endorser). Practically, the purpose of this research is to assist practitioners in understanding the impact of using controversial endorsers in CSA initiatives.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Corporate Social Advocacy

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is generally defined as a company’s position and activities in relation to its perceived social duties, and is closely connected to brand activism, although there are important differences [18,19]. Under this umbrella exists the concept of corporate social advocacy (CSA). While the term “CSA” generally refers to a company’s public stance on socio-political issues [20], CSA has also been defined as a corporate action that may be carried out by any representative of the company in relation to partisan sociopolitical issues [21]. Some scholars have referred to corporate social advocacy (CSA) as corporate political advocacy or brand activism [22]. CSA can come in many forms, including CEO statements or speeches [4,23,24], official statements of a company [25,26,27,28], advertisements [29,30], and corporate social media posts [22,24,31].

More recently, researchers have begun to distinguish CSA from CSR [31,32]. Because CSA can often promote challenging beliefs and objectives, it is frequently distinguished from CSR, which entails charitable support for broadly popular projects [33]. Because the nature of the corporate support is different, CSR and CSA efforts generate distinctive consumer responses. While CSA often results in polarized reactions, CSR messages usually evoke support or general ambivalence from customers [19].

2.2. Consumer–Brand Congruence

A substantial body of literature has examined various instances of congruence that enhance consumers’ positive attitudes toward brands and influence positive behavioral intentions [34]. Congruence refers to the extent to which two or more objects share similar or important characteristics [35]. Identifying areas of congruence is important, as one’s identity can bolstered by finding and embracing an ideology (political or otherwise) that helps one to connect with others [36]. Highly congruent information combines with a person’s personal identity more so than incongruent information, encouraging highly congruent information to be viewed more favorably [37]. Studies also show that congruent information can produce more favorable attitudes and mitigate negative attitudes [38]. It has been well-documented that consumers tend to display positive attitudes toward a brand when they associate themselves with it, which is called consumer–brand congruence or consumer–brand identification [39].

The literature on consumer behavior based on congruence confirms that individuals select certain products or brands for their symbolic meanings and practical value [40,41,42,43]. People consider not only what they do with the product but also the meanings that are associated with them. Scholars refer to this cognitive match between a product or brand image and a consumer’s identity as self-image congruence or self-congruity [44,45,46,47], with research on the topic showing that it plays a significant role in motivating consumer behaviors [48,49,50].

Previous work shows that self-congruence between brands and consumers leads to positive consumer attitudes toward said brands [45,51], more effective advertising [52,53], increased purchase intention [54], and overall better brand preference [55,56], all of which are also affected by brand attitude [57]. According to a recent study on CSA, consumer–company congruence was positively associated with a consumer’s intention to purchase from companies practicing CSA, whereas consumer–company congruence was negatively associated with consumers’ boycott intention [58]. However, little is known about how an individual’s perceived congruence between themselves and a brand affects their attitude toward the brand as a reaction of brands taking a stand. Therefore, we posit the following:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).Consumer–brand congruence will be positively associated with brand attitude.

2.3. Consumers Intention and Preference

For scholars in the corporate communication and advertising fields, brand preference is often discussed in tandem with other measures such as brand satisfaction [59] and emotional attachment [60]. Brand satisfaction has been shown to function as a precursor to brand preference, meaning that consumer attitudes toward a brand should affect brand preference, either positively or negatively. Emotional attachment is influenced by self-congruence [61] and affects brand preference and purchase intent [62].

Brand activism provides consumers the opportunity to compare themselves to the identity of the brand within the context of moral judgments [17]. Consumer-brand identification postulates that consumers who strongly identify with a brand should have more favorable brand attitudes as well as stronger purchase intentions [54,63]. Hong and Li (2021) also found that brands that are vocal about socio-political issues will see an increase in purchase intention from consumers who hold similar viewpoints with the brand. Likewise, CSA plays a significant role in impacting brand preferences as it gives the consumer a way to have a voice, make a statement and exercise power. The products purchased, and by extension the preference of a particular brand, is a way for consumers to have agency, by sharing their views, values, beliefs, and lifestyles [64].

For self-congruence to occur, consumers examine ideas of who they are and compare them to the perceived image of a brand [56,61]. In this study, we examine self-congruence through the lens of consumers and a brand within the concept of CSA. The literature shows that consumers’ attitude toward a brand should affect both the brand preference and purchase intent. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2 (H2).Brand attitude will be positively associated with (a) purchase intention and (b) brand preference.

2.4. Boycotts and Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance theory, which some refer to as one of the consistency family theories, argues that some circumstances can motivate an individual to take actions that do not match their beliefs, which result in uncomfortable experiences and tension, leading the person to modify their beliefs [65]. Consumer–brand congruence is one of three constructs (along with brand–cause fit and consumer–cause fit) that interact with consistencies and inconsistencies in the minds of the consumers [25]. The focus of cognitive dissonance theory is on one’s self, which is in line with the construct of consumer–brand congruence, which deals with consumers’ identification of self-value [25,65].

In an investigation on consumer boycott behaviors, Klein et al. (2004) found that when consumers encounter an initial trigger event that generates negative attitudes, they subsequently evaluate the expected costs and benefits of a brand boycott. Consistent with other boycott literature [66,67], Klein et al. (2004) found that boycott participation is prompted by consumer beliefs that a brand has engaged in conduct that is wrong and could have negative consequences. Klein et al.’s (2004) study showed that the perceived egregiousness of the company’s action was a powerful predictor of boycott participation due to the formation of negative attitudes by consumers. This means that unexpected consumer reactions might occur as a result of brand activism [68]. Taking a stance might enrage consumers, partners, and workers who disagree with the company’s policies, which is why many businesses are afraid to do so [69,70]. This study hypothesizes that consumers may recommend boycotting as a way to show their socio-political opinion [58,71]. Therefore, we posit the following:

Hypothesis 3 (H3).Brand attitude will be negatively associated with boycott recommendations.

2.5. Brand Attitude

Consumer attitudes can generate both favorable and unfavorable beliefs about a brand [72]. Congruence can lead to more favorable attitudes and diminish negative attitudes [38], which results in higher purchase intentions [54], brand preferences [55,56], and a lower likelihood of boycott recommendations [73,74].

In a recent study on CSA, brand attitude mediates the relationship between consumer–brand socio-political position congruence and boycott intention, as well as purchase intention [58]. In line with these findings, earlier studies showed that when a brand and consumer have a shared position on a socio-political issue, consumers will have more favorable attitudes toward the brand and are more likely to purchase from the company; on the other hand, if consumers do not agree with the brand’s stance, consumers are more likely to hold negative attitudes toward the brand and attempt to boycott the brand [75,76]. Based on the literature, it is possible that brand attitude serves as a bridge between consumer–brand congruence and a consumer’s behavioral intentions. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 4 (H4).Brand attitude will mediate the relationship between consumer–brand congruence and (a) purchase intention, (b) brand preference, and (c) boycott recommendation.

2.6. Celebrity Endorsements

An extensive body of literature shows that celebrity endorsements lead to higher levels of consumer–brand patronage intentions [77]. Sports apparel brands choose athletes as celebrity endorsers to enhance positive attitudes and encourage merchandise sales [78,79]. In sports literature, studies show that consumers are more likely to display higher levels of purchase intention when they associate themselves with endorsed athletes [80,81]. Specifically, researchers found that companies could achieve a variety of benefits from athlete endorsements, such as a consumer’s increased probability of brand choice, intention to pay a premium price, and positive word of mouth [8,82].

However, when using controversial celebrity endorsements, research shows that these partnerships can yield negative outcomes such as negative publicity [83], negative word-of-mouth, and consumer boycotts [84]. These responses can lead to companies being required to take swift action. As example would be the ending of Kate Moss’ relationship with several fashion brands such as Burberry and H&M after reports surfaced that she had issues with substance abuse [85].

Pradhan, Duraipandian, and Sethi (2016) investigated the effect of celebrity–brand–user congruence on brand attitude and brand purchase intention. The authors suggested that future research should consider examining sports figures or movie stars as a factor that moderates the impact of personality congruence on brand attitude and purchase intention. Another relevant study examined the moderating effect of the attractiveness, experience, and similarity of an endorser on a consumer’s willingness to purchase a product [86]. The study found that consumers were more likely to purchase a product when the endorser’s credibility is moderated by the consumer’s similarity with the endorser. In line with this, we propose that the combination of a favorable attitude toward a brand and a higher level of consumer–celebrity congruence would lead to more positive behavioral responses to the company’s stand.

Hypothesis 5 (H5).

Congruence between consumers and a “controversial” celebrity will moderate the indirect effect of consumer–brand congruence on (a) purchase intention, (b) brand preference, and (c) boycott recommendation.

The Conceptual Model is shown in Figure 1.

3. Methods

To test the hypotheses, an online survey was conducted. The data were collected in March 2019. Participants were recruited using a Qualtrics online panel. To mirror the U.S. population in terms of demographics, we used quota sampling where age, gender, race, education level, income, and political affiliation were used to obtain the desired sample. Quota sampling allows for more generalizable findings given the significant relationships between demographic variables and individual responses to CSA from previous research. Researchers have found that attitudinal and behavioral responses to CSA vary depending on demographic variables such as age and political affiliation [4,22]. Regarding Nike’s campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick, research has shown that younger adults and Democrats display more favorable attitudes and behaviors, whereas older individuals and Republicans tend to display negative attitudes towards the advertisement and engage in boycotts [87].

The controversial celebrity endorsement studied was the use of Colin Kaepernick in Nike’s 30th anniversary campaign. Colin Kaepernick is a former professional American football quarterback in the National Football League (NFL); many people also view him as a social justice activist. In 2016, his last season in the NFL, Colin Kaepernick knelt during the national anthem to protest against alleged police brutality against African Americans. Kaepernick stated, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color” [88]. Reactions to the NFL kneeling protests were polarized. Although some people viewed the protest as appropriate and supported the action, others viewed the protest as disrespectful to the United States flag and military, with some subsequently electing to boycott the NFL.

Based on the findings from previous work, participants had to not only meet specific demographic criteria but also knew of Nike’s advertisement featuring Colin Kaepernick as of March 2019. To ensure the participants’ knowledge of the campaign, a screening question was used. Participants who indicated that they had previously heard of the advertisement were included in the sample. In total, 372 participants successfully completed the survey. Of the 372 participants, 208 (55.8%) were male and 161 (43.2%) were female. The average age of the participants was 50.73 (SD = 18.13). More than four-fifths participants self-identified as Caucasian (N = 312, 83.6%). Full sample characteristics are shown in Table A1. Prior to conducting the main study, a pretest (N = 75) using a Qualtrics sample was conducted to examine the flow of questions, scale reliability, and multicollinearity among independent variables. We revised the questionnaire based on the pretest results. The pretest sample was not included in the final sample.

Given the controversy over Colin Kaepernick’s protest, the consumer response to Nike’s campaign, featuring Colin Kaepernick, was also polarized. Although Nike received praise for the campaign, the company also confronted backlash on social media from angry consumers, who, in some cases, burned their Nike products. Nike has a history of being controversial [89,90], which made the selection of this campaign as the foundation for this study even more appropriate. This study aims to test how consumers react to brands taking a stance while involving a controversial celebrity. The inclusion of the controversial celebrity was an essential component of Nike’s campaign, which is a rare case to see in CSA campaigns. Although researchers have argued that the controversy over Colin Kaepernick and his protest affected the public’s attitudinal and behavioral responses to Nike’s campaign, previous research did not examine how individuals associate themselves with Colin Kaepernick. Given the lack of empirical evidence on the impact of individuals’ identification with a controversial celebrity on their behavioral responses CSA, this study examines whether individuals’ identification with a controversial celebrity plays a more important role in shaping their behavioral responses to CSA compared to individuals’ identification with a controversial company. In addition, Nike is one of the most popular brands that consumers want to identify with. Nike’s campaign is a suitable CSA case because this study aims to test how the relationship between consumer–brand congruence and behavioral responses to CSA campaigns vary depending on consumers’ levels of identification with a controversial celebrity. Because of the distinctiveness and controversial nature of the Nike campaign, this campaign would be an ideal case to test the proposed hypotheses in this study.

3.1. Measurements

3.1.1. Independent Variable

Consumer–Brand Congruence. Consumer–Brand Congruence was measured using four items on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = “strongly disagree”; 7 = “strongly agree”) adapted from Du, Bhattacharya, and Sen (2007). Examples of the items include “My sense of Nike matches my sense of who I am”, and “The image I have of Nike fits in with my self-image” identification (M = 3.84, SD = 1.93, Cronbach’s α = 0.95).

3.1.2. Dependent Variables

Attitude toward the Brand. Taken from previous research [89], consumer attitudes toward Nike were assessed by using three items on a 7-point semantic differential scale. Participants were asked to indicate whether their attitude toward Nike is “negative-positive”, “dislike-like” and “unfavorable-favorable” (M = 4.53, SD = 2.20, Cronbach’s α = 0.98).

Purchase Intention. Nike purchase intention was measured using three items on a 7-point Likert-type scale adapted from Dodd and Supa (2015). Items such as “It is highly likely that I will buy Nike’s products in the near future”, and “I plan to buy Nike’s products on a regular basis” were included (M = 3.54, SD = 2.12, Cronbach’s α = 0.96).

Brand Preference. Brand preference was measured by using four items on a 7-point Likert-type scale adapted from Chen and Chang (2008). Sample items include “Nike is my preferred brand over any other brand of athletic wear”, and “I am inclined to buy Nike over any other brand of athletic wear” (M = 3.41, SD = 2.01, Cronbach’s α = 0.98).

Boycott Recommendation. Participants were asked to indicate their likelihood to recommend to their family and friends to boycott Nike. Three items on a 7-point Likert-type scale adapted from Lindenmeier, Schleer, and Pricl (2012) were used. Sample items are “I will advise my friends to join a boycott of Nike”, and “I will advise my friends against buying Nike’s products” (M = 3.38, SD = 2.29, Cronbach’s α = 0.98).

3.1.3. Moderating Variable

Consumer–Celebrity Congruence. Participants were asked to indicate the congruence between Colin Kaepernick and themselves. Four items on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = “strongly disagree”; 7 = “strongly agree”) were used and were based on Um’s (2018) scale. Items such as “Colin Kaepernick is a personal role model” were included (M = 3.22, SD = 1.97, Cronbach’s α = 0.95).

3.1.4. Covariates

Brand Familiarity. Taken from previous research [91], three items on a 7-point semantic differential scale were used to measure brand familiarity. Participants were asked to indicate their familiarity with Nike using the terms “unfamiliar-familiar”, “inexperienced-experienced”, and “not knowledgeable-knowledgeable” (M = 5.52, SD = 1.47, Cronbach’s α = 0.93).

NFL Protest Issue Importance. Participants’ perceived importance of NFL protests was measured by adopting 8 items on a seven-point semantic differential scale from Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, and Hill (2006). Some example items are “unimportant/important”, and “insignificant/significant” (M = 4.40, SD = 2.01, Cronbach’s α = 0.96).

Demographics. Age group, gender, race, political view (1 = conservative, 7 = liberal), and previous purchase experience served as covariates. Dummy-coding was used for age group (1 = 18–34 years old, 0 = 35 years old or older), gender (1 = female, 0 = male), race (1 = African American, 0 = other race), and previous purchase experience (1 = those who purchased Nike’s product in the past 6 months, 0 = those who did not purchased Nike’s product in the past 6 months).

The age groups were selected because previous research showed that young adults are more likely to support companies taking a public stand on a controversial social issue [4], the NFL protest [92], and Nike’s decision to feature Colin Kaepernick in their campaign [93]. One’s political view was measured by using one item on a 7-point Likert-type scale, with a higher score indicating a stronger liberal view (M = 4.09, SD = 1.88).

Prior to testing the study hypotheses, the validity of the constructs was tested by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation using Mplus (version 7). The result of the CFA indicated that the measurement model fits the data well, χ² (436) = 1311.99, p < 0.001, the comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.95, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.07, and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.04, based on the cutoff values suggested by Hu and Bentler (1998). Table A2 in Appendix A shows each measurement item and each item’s factor loading.

4. Results

Before testing the hypotheses, we performed the variance inflation factor (VIF) test to check multicollinearity among independent variables. Researchers note that a VIF value greater than 10 indicates multicollinearity [94,95]. The results of the VIF test showed that all VIF values for independent variables were smaller than 10. Mplus (version 7.4) was used to test the hypotheses. Participants’ age, gender, political view, race, brand familiarity, NFL protest issue importance, and previous purchase experience were used as covariates in the analyses.

H1 examined the relationship between consumer–brand congruence and attitude toward the brand. After controlling for the covariates, consumer–brand congruence was shown to be positively associated with attitude toward the brand (β = 0.50, p < 0.001), offering support for H1. Of the covariates, previous purchase experience (β = 0.13, p < 0.01), political view (β = 0.24, p < 0.001), and NFL protest issue importance (β = 0.12, p < 0.01) were positively associated with individuals’ attitude toward the brand.

We hypothesized that an individual’s attitude toward the brand would be positively associated with purchase intent (H2a) and brand preference (H2b), and negatively associated with boycott recommendation (H3). After controlling for the same covariates, attitude toward the brand showed a positive relationship with purchase intent (β = 0.41, p < 0.001) and brand preference (β = 0.34, p < 0.001), but a negative association with boycott recommendation (β = −0.69, p < 0.001). H2a, H2b, and H3 were supported.

Tests of Mediation and Moderated Mediation

To test indirect effects, we used the bootstrap method outlined by Hayes and Preacher (2014). Bootstrapping sampling enables researchers to estimate indirect effects by randomly picking up cases from resampled data with replacement. Mediation effects are considered statistically significant when confidence intervals do not straddle zero. We conducted a bias-corrected bootstrap mediation analyses with 10,000 samples.

H4 predicted that an individual’s attitude toward the brand would mediate the relationship between consumer–brand congruence and behavioral intentions. Results of mediation test indicated that attitude toward the brand mediates the relationship between consumer–brand congruence and purchase intent (β = 0.22, SE_boot = 04, 95% CI = [0.13, 0.27], p < 0.001), brand preference (β = 0.18, SE_boot = 04, 95% CI = [0.11, 0.27], p < 0.001), and boycott recommendation (β = −0.28, SE_boot = 0.05, 95% CI = [−0.38, −0.19], p < 0.001). Path coefficients were standardized. H4 was supported. Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the full results of the mediation tests.

We hypothesized that congruence between consumers and the celebrity would moderate the indirect effects of consumer–brand congruence on behavioral intentions via attitude toward the brand. After controlling the same covariates used for mediation tests, the results of moderated mediation tests indicated that a participant’s congruence with the celebrity moderates the indirect effects of consumer–brand congruence on brand preference (moderated mediation index: b = 0.03, SE_boot = 0.01, 95% CI = [0.003, 0.05], p < 0.05) and boycott recommendation (moderated mediation index: b = 0.06, SE_boot = 0.02, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.10], p < 0.01) via attitude toward the brand. H5a and H5b were supported. Of the covariates, being African American (β = 0.07, p < 0.05) and previous purchase experience (β = 0.27, p < 0.001) were positively associated with brand preference. Regarding boycott recommendation, liberal political view (β = −0.23, p < 0.001) was negatively associated with boycott recommendation. Other demographic variables were not associated with brand preference and boycott recommendation. However, there was no moderated mediation effect of consumer–celebrity congruence on purchase intent (moderated mediation index: b = 0.02, SE_boot = 0.01, p = 0.18). In the final model, attitude toward the brand (β = 0.39, p < 0.001), consumer–brand congruence (β = 0.27, p < 0.001), consumer–celebrity congruence (β = 0.13, p < 0.01), brand familiarity (β = 0.07, p < 0.01), and previous purchase experience (β = 0.21, p < 0.001) positively predicted individuals’ purchase intent. H5c was not supported.

5. Discussion

Building on previous research that examined the role of consumer–brand congruence and consumer–celebrity congruence on consumer attitude and behaviors, this study tested the relationship between such congruences and consumer behaviors in the context of CSA and controversial celebrity endorsements. The results of this study show that consumer–brand congruence and attitude towards the brand influence individuals’ intention to purchase products from brands engaging in CSA. The positive impacts of consumer–brand congruence, consumer–celebrity congruence, and favorable attitude toward the brand were consistent with what scholars such as Hong and Li (2021) alluded to, which is that brands who are vocal about socio-political issues should anticipate an increase in people who plan to buy from them if they hold congruent views with the company.

In addition to purchase intention, consumer–brand congruence and brand attitude also plays a significant role in boycott recommendation and brand preference. The results of this study demonstrate the important role of specific factors (i.e., congruence and attitude) in shaping individuals’ brand preferences [55,56] and boycott recommendations [73] when brands take a public stand on socio-political issues. It is notable that the use of controversial celebrities did not negatively affect consumers’ behavioral intentions as long as they associate themselves with the brand and have a favorable attitude toward the brand.

Similar to prior work [96], the results of this study also indicate that consumer–brand congruence has positive impacts on brand attitude and purchase intention. However, unlike the nonsignificant impact of consumer–celebrity congruence on consumer behaviors found in Pradhan’s (2016) study, this study shows that consumer–celebrity congruence influences positive consumer behaviors, including purchase intention and brand preference in this study. When it comes to boycott recommendations, consumer–celebrity congruence moderates the indirect effects of consumer–brand congruence on boycott recommendations via brand attitude; however, there was no direct effect of consumer–celebrity congruence on boycott recommendation. The findings of this study suggest that the activist nature of a brand’s communication and their endorser may play an important role when brands communicate their CSA initiatives with consumers.

The results of moderated mediation tests show that an individual’s congruence with controversial celebrities does not impact the mediation effect of attitude toward the brand on the relationship between consumer–brand congruence and purchase intent. This is important in its application not only to theory but to the field. Previous research argues that celebrity–brand congruence and negative publicity (associated with the celebrity) have a lower impact on consumers’ attitude toward the brand and purchase intention [97]. While some brands may have concerns about the potential negative impact of collaborating with a controversial celebrity when they take a public stand on a socio-political issue, the nonsignificant moderated mediation effect of consumer–celebrity congruence indicates that consumers would purchase products from a brand practicing CSA as long as consumers hold strong consumer–brand congruence and favorable attitudes toward the brand, regardless of their identification with a controversial celebrity.

Previous research has also recognized the role of race and ethnicity in the consumer decision-making process [98,99,100,101]. Given the fact that the market is full of groups that hold unique beliefs (including political views), brands should understand each group’s needs and characteristics, including ethnicity, to better target them [102]. By dividing a target audience into groups and developing segmentation schemes that take into consideration different aspects [103], brands could maximize the effectiveness of their CSA. In his research about advocacy advertising, Haley (1996) states that a company’s previous involvement with social issues impacts how consumers evaluate the credibility their advertising. The evaluation could also be linked to consumers’ ethnicity and the use of cultural symbols [103].

In line with findings mentioned in the literature, the results of this study showed that race and political views predicted brand preference. African Americans and those who have more liberal political views displayed higher levels of brand preference. Due to their association with the “Black Lives Matter” movement, African Americans, compared to other races, appeared to be more engaged with the issue, and their behavioral intentions were influenced significantly. When it comes to boycotting recommendations, individuals who hold more liberal political views were less likely to recommend boycotting Nike. The findings imply that brands should consider their target audiences’ race and political stance before taking any socio-political position. With this said, serious conversations surrounding the ethics of using race when creating ad campaigns need to be had.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

This work offers a series of theoretical contributions to the current repository of CSA and celebrity endorsement literature. While previous works, such as Bhattacharya and Sen (2004), examined the role of consumer–brand congruence and consumer–brand identification on consumer behaviors, including purchase intention, we further examined the role of congruence in consumer behaviors by testing more behavioral outcomes, including brand preference and boycott recommendation. Although previous research showed a negative relationship between consumer–brand congruence and boycott recommendation [58], the results of this study showed that the relationship is fully mediated by an individual’s attitude toward the brand. In other words, individuals’ identification with a brand does not necessarily prevent them from boycotting the brand if they do like the brand. However, the results of this study indicate that individuals would be less likely to recommend boycotts when they develop a favorable attitude toward a brand as a result of their identification with the brand.

Scholars have investigated the impact of celebrity endorsements on consumers with a primary focus on the way that brands and the endorsers themselves paired [104,105,106]. Other scholars have taken this topic and examined it from the aspect of consumer–celebrity congruence [80,107]; however, there is a gap in the literature regarding the role of consumer–celebrity congruence in shaping consumer behaviors, particularly when brands engage with controversial socio-political issues. While research on CSA constructs is in the midst of an explosion of scholarship [9,17,25,58], research on the role of celebrities in the context of CSA and brand activism has been limited. By testing the moderation effects of consumers’ congruence with controversial celebrities on consumer behaviors, this study offers empirical findings to the current body of literature.

This paper builds on previous research related to congruence and celebrity endorsement by showing that consumer–brand congruence positively impacts consumer responses, specifically in relation to activist content. Consumer–brand congruence had a positive impact on brand attitude, brand preference, and the decreased likelihood of boycott recommendations. How consumers will react to contentious topics is important to consider when working to understand the mechanisms at play in congruence research. The results of this study offer more insight into the role of congruence when a company’s business practice involves speaking out about a controversial social-political issue or partnering with a controversial celebrity.

This study also suggests that consumer–celebrity congruence plays a moderating role in the indirect relationship between consumer–brand congruence, consumer brand preference, and boycott recommendations through brand attitude; however, this was not the case when it came to purchase intention. Departing from previous work and suggesting something new, this paper adds more clarity to previous work and suggests that when consumer–celebrity congruence is high, there is a higher likelihood of consumers purchasing the product [80,107], positing that in specific instances where the endorser is “controversial”, consumers are less likely to take immediate action (which includes the purchase of the item). While more work is needed to further examine the moderated mediation effect of consumer–celebrity congruence in the context of CSA, the results of this study suggest that consumer–brand congruence rather than consumer–celebrity congruence plays a more important role in determining consumer behaviors when brands practice CSA. In other words, the findings of this study indicated that individuals with higher consumer–brand congruence and favorable attitudes toward the brand would purchase from companies practicing CSA regardless of their identification with a controversial celebrity.

The findings of this study also suggest that the indirect effects of consumer–brand congruence on brand preference and boycott recommendation become stronger as people find themselves to be more congruent with the endorser. As one should expect, if people find themselves to be more congruent with the endorser (in this case, Colin Kaepernick), then they are more likely to prefer the brand and less likely to recommend boycotting it.

This result supports the findings from previous work conducted by Hong and Li (2021), in which they suggest that brand attitude is a mechanism that can help explain the impacts of consumer–brand congruence on behavioral intentions. Along with suggesting that the work completed was correct in its assumptions, this study also added the construct “brand preference” to the mix, examining long-term favorability, and studying the concepts through the lens of CSA.

While it has been shown via both empirical studies and research reports [108,109] that age is a factor in CSA, our research reveals that age is not a significant contributor when other factors are taken into consideration. Although previous studies showed that younger generations hold more favorable views related to CSA initiatives, we did not find significant differences between age groups. The nonsignificant role of age in the results might indicate that the relationship between age and an individual’s view of CSA is not simple. Besides age, other individual differences such as political views and previous purchase experiences were positively associated with an individual’s attitude toward the brand and behavioral intentions.

It is possible that younger generations are more positive toward CSA initiatives because of certain characteristics, not simply because they are younger. In other words, there might be individual differences in the same age group or generation, which in turn affect their attitudinal and behavioral responses toward CSA initiatives. More studies are needed to better understand how different age groups develop their behaviors in response to CSA initiatives. Additionally, the results also show that men and women have no significant difference in their reactions to CSA initiatives, which is consistent with recent work [109].

5.2. Practical Implications

Moving from the academic to the corporate world, this work suggests that companies should consider the importance of consumer congruence when speaking to a particular cause. In this work, findings suggest that corporations have little to lose when considering activist communications, specifically those that include celebrity endorsers. When congruence is high between the celebrity and the consumer, variables such as brand preference and brand recommendation improve, and the likelihood of recommending actions such as boycotts lowers. More so, even when an individual and the endorser share low levels of congruence, purchase intention is not impacted, and consumers are still not likely to recommend boycotting the brand because of the content they are exposed to. While consumers can often find reasons to dislike a brand, the research here suggests it is not because someone disliked the endorser.

For companies looking to become more activist-oriented but are worried about the potential fallout from the work or the endorsers they hire, the results of this study suggest that companies do not have to worry about the celebrity they collaborate with. Based on our findings, it is consumer–brand congruence rather than consumer–celebrity congruence that determines consumer behaviors when brands take a public stand on socio-political issues. While media entities may suggest it is the opposite, using a “controversial” celebrity endorser for CSA initiatives might not be controversial when it comes to the actual negative consumer behaviors such as boycott recommendation. Based on the findings of this study, consumers would be more likely to engage in boycotts because of lower levels of their identification with a brand, not a celebrity endorser. Thus, brands should invest more resources in enhancing consumer–brand identification among their target consumers instead of spending more resources on selecting their celebrity endorsers.

5.3. Limitation and Future Directions

As with all work, there are areas where this paper needs further expansion, and we invite future research to consider the following suggestions. This paper specifically focuses on CSA in the context of a single “controversial” campaign, and more work should be done to examine whether or not consumer–celebrity endorsement plays a significant role in other instances of controversial brand CSA efforts. It also should be noted that individuals’ perceptions were examined retrospectively in this study. It is possible that the participants’ perceptions of the campaign had changed. Thus, more longitudinal studies are needed to test the impact of CSA on consumers’ perceptions of brands and behaviors long last enough. Another future approach would be an experimental study that implements biometrics measurements, such as facial expression and galvanic skin devices. Incorporating biometric measurements with self-reporting data would help capture the consumers’ “genuine” responses to the controversial campaign. Another limitation of this study is using a publicly recognized CSA campaign, which could potentially affect the public’s attitude and perception of the issue. That might be the nature of any controversial campaign. Future research, however, should consider examining CSA campaigns that are less publicized to test whether the findings of this study are consistent when individuals have limited knowledge about CSA cases.

Factors such as patriotism and religious affiliation should be explored in the wider context, and in the specific context studied here, the construct of NFL fandom would be an avenue that may provide some interesting results. As more brands continue to latch on to activist causes, it will be imperative that research examines the mechanisms at play, both for the benefit of those in the corporate arena and those consuming the content. Previous research suggests that celebrity–brand congruence and publicity significantly impact consumers’ attitude and behavioral intention [97]. Future research could look into the role of these two factors in the context of CSA.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.A., J.K.K., C.N. and J.C.; methodology, K.A. and J.K.K.; formal analysis, J.K.K.; investigation, K.A., J.K.K., C.N. and J.C.; data curation, K.A. and J.K.K.; writing—original draft preparation, K.A., J.K.K., C.N. and J.C.; writing—review and editing, K.A., J.K.K., C.N. and J.C.; project administration, K.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of South Carolina (Pro00084898). Prior to participating in the study, all participants gave their informed consent.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data will be made available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Figure 1. Conceptual Model. Note. H4 = Indirect effects of consumer–brand congruence on purchase intent, brand preference, and boycott recommendation via attitude toward the brand. Dotted line represents a negative association.

Figure 2. Result of moderated mediation test (purchase intent). Note. Path coefficients are standardized. Dotted line represents total effect when attitude toward brand is included as a mediator. *** p < 0.001.

Figure 3. Result of moderated mediation test (brand preference). Note. Path coefficients are standardized. Dotted line represents total effect when attitude toward brand is included as a mediator. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Figure 4. Result of moderated mediation test (boycott recommendation). Note. Path coefficients are standardized. Dotted line represents total effect when attitude toward brand is included as a mediator. *** p < 0.001.

Appendix A

Table A1

Participant characteristics.

	N or M	% or SD
Age	50.73	18.13
Gender
Male	208	55.8%
Female	161	43.2%
Other	4	1.0%
Race/Ethnicity
White	286	76.7%
African American	36	9.7%
Hispanic or Latino	26	6.9%
Asian	13	3.5%
American Indian or Alaska Native	5	1.3%
Multi-Racial	7	1.9%
Education
Less than high school	8	2.1%
High school graduate	87	23.3%
Some college	88	23.6%
Two-year college degree	54	14.5%
Four-year college degree	76	20.4%
Some graduate work	19	5.1%
Master’s degree	39	10.5%
Doctorate or Professional degree	2	0.5%
Household income
Less than 25,000	92	24.7%
$25,000–$39,999	65	17.4%
$40,000–$49,999	35	9.4%
$50,000–$74,999	65	17.4%
$75,000–$99,999	52	13.9%
More than $100,000	64	17.2%
Total	373

Table A2

Measurement.

Measures	M(SD)	Loading
Consumer–Brand Congruence (α = 0.95)	3.84 (1.93)
My sense of Nike matches my sense of who I am.	4.05 (1.99)	0.80
I am similar to what I think Nike represents.	3.76 (2.09)	0.94
I am similar to how I perceive Nike.	3.81 (2.06)	0.96
The image I have of Nike fits in with my self-image.	3.72 (2.10)	0.96
Attitude toward Nike (α = 0.98)	4.53 (2.20)
Dislike-Like	4.61 (2.23)	0.96
Unfavorable-Favorable	4.50 (2.25)	0.97
Negative-Positive	4.49 (2.26)	0.97
Purchase Intention (α = 0.96)	3.54 (2.12)
It is highly likely that I will buy Nike’s products in the near future.	3.75 (2.25)	0.92
I plan to buy Nike’s products on a regular basis.	3.36 (2.18)	0.95
I am enthusiastic about the possibility of buying Nike’s products.	3.52 (2.18)	0.96
Brand Preference (α = 0.98)	3.41 (2.01)
I like Nike better than any other brand of athletic wear (e.g., Under Armour, Adidas, Reebok).	3.47 (2.03)	0.93
I would use Nike’s products more than I would use any other brand.	3.42 (2.09)	0.98
Nike is my preferred brand over any other brand of athletic wear.	3.38 (2.10)	0.96
I am inclined to buy Nike over any other brand of athletic wear.	3.39 (2.11)	0.97
Boycott Recommendation (α = 0.98)	3.38 (2.29)
I will advise my family against buying Nike’s products.	3.39 (2.35)	0.97
I will advise my friends against buying Nike’s products.	3.44 (2.35)	0.99
I will advise my friends to join a boycott of Nike.	3.30 (2.32)	0.93
Consumer–celebrity congruence (α = 0.95)	3.22 (1.97)
I like Colin Kaepernick.	3.69 (2.21)	0.91
I can easily relate to Colin Kaepernick.	3.27 (2.35)	0.96
I think of Colin Kaepernick as a friend.	2.85 (1.97)	0.89
Colin Kaepernick is a personal role model.	3.09 (2.11)	0.91
Brand familiarity (α = 0.93)	5.52 (1.47)
Unfamiliar-Familiar	5.75 (1.57)	0.85
Inexperienced-Experienced	5.42 (1.58)	0.94
Not knowledgeable-Knowledgeable	5.41 (1.55)	0.93
NFL protest issue importance (α = 0.96)	4.40 (2.01)
Unimportant-Important	4.75 (2.22)	0.82
Of no concern to me-Of concern to me	4.54 (2.22)	0.73
Worthless-Valuable	4.24 (2.33)	0.90
Trivial-Fundamental	4.33 (2.26)	0.92
Uninterested-Interested	4.50 (2.21)	0.90
Insignificant-Significant	4.52 (2.25)	0.92
Nonessential-Essential	4.24 (2.27)	0.92
Superfluous-Vital	4.10 (2.28)	0.89

Note. All factor loadings are standardized and significant at p < 0.001.

References

1. Rivero, T. Consumers to Companies: You Better Stand for Something. Available online: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/edelman-earned-brand-study-2018-consumers-want-companies-to-stand-for-something/ (accessed on 2 January 2022).

2. Swant, M. Silence Is Not An Option: Research Shows Consumers Expect CEOs To Take A Stand On Political Issues. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/martyswant/2021/04/19/silence-is-not-an-option-research-shows-consumers-expect-ceos-to-take-a-stand-on-political-issues/ (accessed on 3 January 2022).

3. Maicon, L. Purpose Is Not Enough: Brand Action Through Advocacy. Available online: https://www.edelman.com/research/purpose-not-enough (accessed on 3 January 2022).

4. Dodd, M.D.; Supa, D. Testing the Viability of Corporate Social Advocacy as a Predictor of Purchase Intention. Commun. Res. Rep.; 2015; 32, pp. 287-293. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2015.1089853]

5. Curry, L. How Brands Can Follow Through on the Values They’re Selling. Available online: https://hbr.org/2020/08/how-brands-can-follow-through-on-the-values-theyre-selling (accessed on 3 January 2022).

6. 2018 Edelman Earned Brand: Brand Take a Stand. Available online: https://www.edelman.com/earned-brand (accessed on 2 January 2022).

7. Gaines-Ross, L. What CEOs Should Know about Speaking up on Political Issues. Available online: https://hbr.org/2017/02/what-ceos-should-know-about-speaking-up-on-political-issues (accessed on 3 January 2022).

8. Rodrigues, C.; Brandão, A.; Rodrigues, P. I Can’t Stop Hating You: An Anti-Brand-Community Perspective on Apple Brand Hate. J. Prod. Brand Manag.; 2021; 30, pp. 1115-1133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-10-2019-2621]

9. Vredenburg, J.; Kapitan, S.; Spry, A.; Kemper, J.A. Brands Taking a Stand: Authentic Brand Activism or Woke Washing?. J. Public Policy Mark.; 2020; 39, pp. 444-460. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743915620947359]

10. Disis, J. Starbucks Pledges to Hire 10,000 Refugees. Available online: https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/29/news/companies/starbucks-hiring-refugees/index.html (accessed on 2 January 2022).

11. Walansky, A. People Want to Boycott Costco over the Store’s New Mandatory Mask Policy. Available online: https://www.today.com/food/people-want-boycott-costco-over-store-s-new-mandatory-mask-t181002 (accessed on 3 January 2022).

12. Ritson, M. If “Black Lives Matter” to Brands, Where Are Your Black Board Members?. Marketing Week; 3 June 2020; Available online: https://www.marketingweek.com/mark-ritson-black-lives-matter-brands/ (accessed on 1 December 2021).

13. Thomas, L.; Golden, J. Here’s Nike’s Full Ad Featuring Colin Kaepernick, Lebron James, Serena Williams and Other Athletes. Available online: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/05/heres-nikes-full-ad-featuring-colin-kaepernick-and-other-athletes.html (accessed on 3 January 2022).

14. Trotta, D. Kaepernick Ads Spark Boycott Calls, but Nike Is Seen as Winning in the End. Reuters; 4 September 2018.

15. Du, S.; Bhattacharya, C.B.; Sen, S. Reaping Relational Rewards from Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Competitive Positioning. Int. J. Res. Mark.; 2007; 24, pp. 224-241. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.01.001]

16. Alhouti, S.; Johnson, C.M.; Holloway, B.B. Corporate Social Responsibility Authenticity: Investigating Its Antecedents and Outcomes. J. Bus. Res.; 2016; 69, pp. 1242-1249. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.09.007]

17. Mukherjee, S.; Althuizen, N. Brand Activism: Does Courting Controversy Help or Hurt a Brand?. Int. J. Res. Mark.; 2020; 37, pp. 772-788. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.02.008]

18. Brown, T.J.; Dacin, P.A. The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses. J. Mark.; 1997; 61, pp. 68-84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299706100106]

19. Hydock, C.; Paharia, N.; Blair, S. Should Your Brand Pick a Side? How Market Share Determines the Impact of Corporate Political Advocacy. J. Mark. Res.; 2020; 57, pp. 1135-1151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022243720947682]

20. Dodd, M.D.; Supa, D.W. Conceptualizing and Measuring “Corporate Social Advocacy” Communication: Examining the Impact on Corporate Financial Performance. Public Relat. J.; 2014; 8, pp. 2-23.

21. Bhagwat, Y.; Warren, N.L.; Beck, J.T.; Watson, G.F., IV. Corporate Sociopolitical Activism and Firm Value. J. Mark.; 2020; 84, pp. 1-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022242920937000]

22. Lim, J.S.; Young, C. Effects of Issue Ownership, Perceived Fit, and Authenticity in Corporate Social Advocacy on Corporate Reputation. Public Relat. Rev.; 2021; 47, 102071. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102071]

23. Chatterji, A.K.; Toffel, M.W. Assessing the Impact of CEO Activism. Organ. Environ.; 2019; 32, pp. 159-185. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026619848144]

24. Lan, X.; Tarasevich, S.; Proverbs, P.; Myslik, B.; Kiousis, S. President Trump vs. CEOs: A Comparison of Presidential and Corporate Agenda Building. J. Public Relat. Res.; 2020; 32, pp. 30-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2020.1719494]

25. Hong, C.; Li, C. To Support or to Boycott: A Public Segmentation Model in Corporate Social Advocacy. J. Public Relat. Res.; 2020; 32, pp. 160-177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2020.1848841]

26. Parcha, J.M.; Kingsley Westerman, C.Y. How Corporate Social Advocacy Affects Attitude Change Toward Controversial Social Issues. Manag. Commun. Q.; 2020; 34, pp. 350-383. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318920912196]

27. Waymer, D.; Logan, N. Corporate Social Advocacy as Engagement: Nike’s Social Justice Communication. Public Relat. Rev.; 2021; 47, 102005. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.102005]

28. Yim, M.C. Fake, Faulty, and Authentic Stand-Taking: What Determines the Legitimacy of Corporate Social Advocacy?. Int. J. Strateg. Commun.; 2021; 15, pp. 60-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2020.1856853]

29. Kim, J.K.; Overton, H.; Bhalla, N.; Li, J.-Y. Nike, Colin Kaepernick, and the Politicization of Sports: Examining Perceived Organizational Motives and Public Responses. Public Relat. Rev.; 2020; 46, 101856. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101856]

30. Li, J.-Y.; Kim, J.K.; Alharbi, K. Exploring the Role of Issue Involvement and Brand Attachment in Shaping Consumer Response toward Corporate Social Advocacy (CSA) Initiatives: The Case of Nike’s Colin Kaepernick Campaign. Int. J. Advert.; 2021; pp. 1-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2020.1857111]

31. Rim, H.; Lee, Y.; Yoo, S. Polarized Public Opinion Responding to Corporate Social Advocacy: Social Network Analysis of Boycotters and Advocators. Public Relat. Rev.; 2020; 46, 101869. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101869]

32. Overton, H.; Kim, J.K.; Zhang, N.; Huang, S. Examining Consumer Attitudes toward CSR and CSA Messages. Public Relat. Rev.; 2021; 47, 102095. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102095]

33. Hydock, C.; Paharia, N.; Weber, T.J. The Consumer Response to Corporate Political Advocacy: A Review and Future Directions. Cust. Needs Solut.; 2019; 6, pp. 76-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40547-019-00098-x]

34. Gupta, S.; Pirsch, J. The Company-cause-customer Fit Decision in Cause-related Marketing. J. Consum. Mark.; 2006; 23, pp. 314-326. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760610701850]

35. Kulkarni, A.; Otnes, C.; Ruth, J.; White, T. The Role of Congruence Theory in Consumer Response to Business-To-Consumer Gift Giving. Advances in Consumer Research; Lee, A.Y.; Soman, D. Association for Consumer Research: Duluth, MN, USA, 2008; 35, 901.

36. Flight, R.L.; Coker, K. Birds of a Feather: Brand Attachment through the Lens of Consumer Political Ideologies. J. Prod. Brand Manag.; 2021; Ahead of printing [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-01-2020-2719]

37. George, M. The Structure of Value: Accounting for Taste. Affect and Cognition; Clark, M.S.; Fiske, S.T. Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 1982; pp. 3-36. ISBN 978-1-315-80275-6

38. Moore, R.S.; Stammerjohan, C.A.; Coulter, R.A. Banner Advertiser-Web Site Context Congruity And Color Effects On Attention And Attitudes. J. Advert.; 2005; 34, pp. 71-84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2005.10639189]

39. Bhattacharya, C.B.; Sen, S. Doing Better at Doing Good: When, Why, and How Consumers Respond to Corporate Social Initiatives. Calif. Manag. Rev.; 2004; 47, pp. 9-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41166284]

40. Belk, R.W. Possessions and the Extended Self. J. Consum. Res.; 1988; 15, pp. 139-168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209154]

41. Lee, D.; Hyman, M.R. Hedonic/Functional Congruity Between Stores and Private Label Brands. J. Mark. Theory Pract.; 2008; 16, pp. 219-232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679160303]

42. Leigh, J.H.; Gabel, T.G. Symbolic Interactionism: Its Effects on Consumer Behavior and Implications for Marketing Strategy. J. Consum. Mark.; 1992; 9, pp. 27-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000002594]

43. Solomon, M.R. The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective. J. Consum. Res.; 1983; 10, pp. 319-329. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208971]

44. Hosany, S.; Martin, D. Self-Image Congruence in Consumer Behavior. J. Bus. Res.; 2012; 65, pp. 685-691. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.03.015]

45. Sirgy, M.J.; Grewal, D.; Mangleburg, T.F.; Park, J.-O.; Chon, K.-S.; Claiborne, C.B.; Johar, J.S.; Berkman, H. Assessing the Predictive Validity of Two Methods of Measuring Self-Image Congruence. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.; 1997; 25, pp. 229-241. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070397253004]

46. Sirgy, M.J.; Grewal, D.; Mangleburg, T. Retail Environment, Self-Congruity, and Retail Patronage. J. Bus. Res.; 2000; 49, pp. 127-138. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00009-0]

47. Sirgy, M.J.; Su, C. Destination Image, Self-Congruity, and Travel Behavior: Toward an Integrative Model. J. Travel Res.; 2000; 38, pp. 340-352. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004728750003800402]

48. Kressmann, F.; Sirgy, M.J.; Herrmann, A.; Huber, F.; Huber, S.; Lee, D.-J. Direct and Indirect Effects of Self-Image Congruence on Brand Loyalty. J. Bus. Res.; 2006; 59, pp. 955-964. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.06.001]

49. Sirgy, M.J.; Samli, A.C. A Path Analytic Model of Store Loyalty Involving Self-Concept, Store Image, Geographic Loyalty, and Socioeconomic Status. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.; 1985; 13, pp. 265-291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02729950]

50. Sirgy, M.J.; Johar, J.S.; Samli, A.C.; Claiborne, C.B. Self-Congruity versus Functional Congruity: Predictors of Consumer Behavior. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.; 1991; 19, pp. 363-375. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02726512]

51. Ekinci, Y.; Riley, M. An Investigation of Self-Concept: Actual and Ideal Self-Congruence Compared in the Context of Service Evaluation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2003; 10, pp. 201-214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6989(02)00008-5]

52. Bjerke, R.; Polegato, R. How Well Do Advertising Images of Health and Beauty Travel across Cultures? A Self-Concept Perspective. Psychol. Mark.; 2006; 23, pp. 865-884. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20137]

53. Hong, J.W.; Zinkhan, G.M. Self-Concept and Advertising Effectiveness: The Influence of Congruency, Conspicuousness, and Response Mode. Psychol. Mark.; 1995; 12, pp. 53-77. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220120105]

54. Bhattacharya, C.B.; Sen, S. Consumer-Company Identification: A Framework for Understanding Consumers’ Relationships with Companies. J. Mark.; 2003; 67, pp. 76-88. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609]

55. Branaghan, R.J.; Hildebrand, E.A. Brand Personality, Self-Congruity, and Preference: A Knowledge Structures Approach. J. Consum. Behav.; 2011; 10, pp. 304-312. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.365]

56. Jamal, A.; Al-Marri, M. Exploring the Effect of Self-Image Congruence and Brand Preference on Satisfaction: The Role of Expertise. J. Mark. Manag.; 2007; 23, pp. 613-629. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1362/026725707X2266]

57. Bass, F.M.; Talarzyk, W.W. An Attitude Model for the Study of Brand Preference. J. Mark. Res.; 1972; 9, pp. 93-96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224377200900121]

58. Hong, C.; Li, C. Will Consumers Silence Themselves When Brands Speak up about Sociopolitical Issues? Applying the Spiral of Silence Theory to Consumer Boycott and Buycott Behaviors. J. Nonprofit Public Sect. Mark.; 2021; 33, pp. 193-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2020.1865234]

59. Jamal, A.; Goode, M.M.H. Consumers and Brands: A Study of the Impact of Self-image Congruence on Brand Preference and Satisfaction. Mark. Intell. Plan.; 2001; 19, pp. 482-492. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634500110408286]

60. Malär, L.; Krohmer, H.; Hoyer, W.D.; Nyffenegger, B. Emotional Brand Attachment and Brand Personality: The Relative Importance of the Actual and the Ideal Self. J. Mark.; 2011; 75, pp. 35-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.35]

61. Sirgy, M.J. Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review. J. Consum. Res.; 1982; 9, pp. 287-300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208924]

62. Grisaffe, D.B.; Nguyen, H.P. Antecedents of Emotional Attachment to Brands. J. Bus. Res.; 2011; 64, pp. 1052-1059. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.11.002]

63. Stokburger-Sauer, N.; Ratneshwar, S.; Sen, S. Drivers of Consumer-Brand Identification. Int. J. Res. Mark.; 2012; 29, pp. 406-418. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.06.001]

64. Eyada, B. Brand Activism, the Relation and Impact on Consumer Perception: A Case Study on Nike Advertising. Int. J. Mark. Stud.; 2020; 12, pp. 30-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v12n4p30]

65. Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance; Stanford University Press: Stanford Redwood City, CA, USA, 1957; ISBN 978-0-8047-0911-8

66. Friedman, M. Consumer Boycotts: Effecting Change through the Marketplace and Media; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1999.

67. Smith, N.C.; Cooper-Martin, E. Ethics and Target Marketing: The Role of Product Harm and Consumer Vulnerability. J. Mark.; 1997; 61, pp. 1-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299706100301]

68. Korschun, D.; Martin, K.D.; Vadakkepatt, G. Marketing’s Role in Understanding Political Activity. J. Public Policy Mark.; 2020; 39, pp. 378-387. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743915620949261]

69. Klostermann, J.; Hydock, C.; Decker, R. The Effect of Corporate Political Advocacy on Brand Perception: An Event Study Analysis. J. Prod. Brand Manag.; 2021; Ahead of printing [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2021-3404]

70. Moorman, C. Commentary: Brand Activism in a Political World. J. Public Policy Mark.; 2020; 39, pp. 388-392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743915620945260]

71. Makarem, S.C.; Jae, H. Consumer Boycott Behavior: An Exploratory Analysis of Twitter Feeds. J. Consum. Aff.; 2016; 50, pp. 193-223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joca.12080]

72. Phelps, J.E.; Hoy, M.G. The Aad-Ab-PI Relationship in Children: The Impact of Brand Familiarity and Measurement Timing. Psychol. Mark.; 1996; 13, pp. 77-105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199601)13:1<77::AID-MAR5>3.0.CO;2-M]

73. Chiu, H.-K. Exploring the Factors Affecting Consumer Boycott Behavior in Taiwan: Food Oil Incidents and the Resulting Crisis of Brand Trust. Int. J. Bus. Inf.; 2016; 11, pp. 49-66.

74. Klein, J.G.; Smith, N.C.; John, A. Why We Boycott: Consumer Motivations for Boycott Participation. J. Mark.; 2004; 68, pp. 92-109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.3.92.34770]

75. Baek, Y.M. To Buy or Not to Buy: Who Are Political Consumers? What Do They Think and How Do They Participate?. Polit. Stud.; 2010; 58, pp. 1065-1086. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00832.x]

76. Swimberghe, K.; Flurry, L.A.; Parker, J.M. Consumer Religiosity: Consequences for Consumer Activism in the United States. J. Bus. Ethics; 2011; 103, pp. 453-467. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0873-2]

77. Carlson, B.D.; Donavan, T. Concerning the Effect of Athlete Endorsements on Brand and Team-Related Intentions. Sport Mark. Q.; 2008; 17, pp. 154-162.

78. Bush, A.J.; Martin, C.A.; Bush, V.D. Sports Celebrity Influence on the Behavioral Intentions of Generation Y. J. Advert. Res.; 2004; 44, pp. 108-118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021849904040206]

79. Mullin, B.J.; Hardy, S.; Sutton, W.A. Sport Marketing; 2nd ed. Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2000; ISBN 978-0-88011-877-4

80. Till, B.D.; Busler, M. The Match-Up Hypothesis: Physical Attractiveness, Expertise, and the Role of Fit on Brand Attitude, Purchase Intent and Brand Beliefs. J. Advert.; 2000; 29, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2000.10673613]

81. Rein, I.J.; Kotler, P.; Shields, B. The Elusive Fan: Reinventing Sports in a Crowded Marketplace; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2006; ISBN 978-0-07-145409-4

82. Tingchi Liu, M.; Huang, Y.; Minghua, J. Relations among Attractiveness of Endorsers, Match-up, and Purchase Intention in Sport Marketing in China. J. Consum. Mark.; 2007; 24, pp. 358-365. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760710822945]

83. Carrillat, F.A.; O’Rourke, A.-M.; Plourde, C. Celebrity Endorsement in the World of Luxury Fashion—When Controversy Can Be Beneficial. J. Mark. Manag.; 2019; 35, pp. 1193-1213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1634632]

84. Akturan, U. Celebrity Advertising in the Case of Negative Associations: Discourse Analysis of Weblogs. Manag. Res. Rev.; 2011; 34, pp. 1280-1295. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409171111186405]

85. Ward, V. The Beautiful and the Damned. Available online: https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2005/12/kate-moss-cocaine-scandal (accessed on 3 January 2022).

86. Zahaf, M.; Anderson, J. Causality Effects between Celebrity Endorsement and the Intentions to Buy. Innov. Mark.; 2008; 4, pp. 57-65.

87. Intravia, J.; Piquero, A.R.; Leeper Piquero, N.; Byers, B. “Just Do It? An Examination of Race on Attitudes Associated with Nike’s Advertisement Featuring Colin Kaepernick”. Deviant Behav.; 2020; 41, pp. 1221-1231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1604299]

88. Wyche, S. Colin Kaepernick Explains Why He Sat during National Anthem. Available online: https://www.nfl.com/news/colin-kaepernick-explains-why-he-sat-during-national-anthem-0ap3000000691077 (accessed on 3 January 2022).

89. Rodgers, S. The Effects Of Sponsor Relevance On Consumer Reactions To Internet Sponsorships. J. Advert.; 2003; 32, pp. 67-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2003.10639141]

90. Jain, K.; Jajodia, I.; Sharma, P.; Singh, G. Brand Bravery: Conceptualization, Scale Development and Validation. J. Prod. Brand Manag.; 2021; 30, pp. 1212-1228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-04-2020-2879]

91. Machleit, K.A.; Allen, C.T.; Madden, T.J. The Mature Brand and Brand Interest: An Alternative Consequence of Ad-Evoked Affect. J. Mark.; 1993; 57, pp. 72-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700406]

92. Parker, K.; Graf, N.; Igielnik, R. Generation Z Looks a Lot Like Millennials on Key Social and Political Issues. Pew Research Center; Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/01/17/generation-z-looks-a-lot-like-millennials-on-key-social-and-political-issues/ (accessed on 1 December 2021).17 January 2019.

93. Meyersohn, N. Young People Support Nike’s Bet on Kaepernick, Poll Shows. Available online: https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/13/news/companies/nike-colin-kaepernick-just-do-it-national-anthem-nfl-football/index.html (accessed on 3 January 2022).

94. Belsley, D.A.; Kuh, E.; Welsch, R.E. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity; (Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics); Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1980; ISBN 978-0-471-05856-4

95. Vatcheva, K.P.; Lee, M.; McCormick, J.B.; Rahbar, M.H. Multicollinearity in Regression Analyses Conducted in Epidemiologic Studies. Epidemiol. Sunnyvale Calif.; 2016; 6, 227. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-1165.1000227]

96. Pradhan, D.; Duraipandian, I.; Sethi, D. Celebrity Endorsement: How Celebrity-Brand-User Personality Congruence Affects Brand Attitude and Purchase Intention. J. Mark. Commun.; 2016; 22, pp. 456-473. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2014.914561]

97. Min, J.H.J.; Chang, H.J.J.; Jai, T.-M.C.; Ziegler, M. The Effects of Celebrity-Brand Congruence and Publicity on Consumer Attitudes and Buying Behavior. Fash. Text.; 2019; 6, 10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40691-018-0159-8]

98. Cui, G.; Powell, K.V. Segmenting the Asian American Consumer Market: An Acculturation Approach. Minority Marketing: Research Perspectives for the 1990s; King, R.L. Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 68-72. ISBN 978-3-319-17385-6

99. Hirschman, E.C. American Jewish Ethnicity: Its Relationship to Some Selected Aspects of Consumer Behavior. J. Mark.; 1981; 45, pp. 102-110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224298104500308]

100. Podoshen, J.S. Word of Mouth, Brand Loyalty, Acculturation and the American Jewish Consumer. J. Consum. Mark.; 2006; 23, pp. 266-282. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760610681664]

101. Tse, D.K.; Belk, R.W.; Zhou, N. Becoming a Consumer Society: A Longitudinal and Cross-Cultural Content Analysis of Print Ads from Hong Kong, the People’s Republic of China, and Taiwan. J. Consum. Res.; 1989; 15, pp. 457-472. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209185]

102. Steven Podoshen, J. The African American Consumer Revisited: Brand Loyalty, Word-of-mouth and the Effects of the Black Experience. J. Consum. Mark.; 2008; 25, pp. 211-222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760810882407]

103. Holland, J.; Gentry, J.W. Ethnic Consumer Reaction to Targeted Marketing: A Theory of Intercultural Accommodation. J. Advert.; 1999; 28, pp. 65-77. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1999.10673577]

104. Malodia, S.; Singh, P.; Goyal, V.; Sengupta, A. Measuring the Impact of Brand-Celebrity Personality Congruence on Purchase Intention. J. Mark. Commun.; 2017; 23, pp. 493-512. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2017.1322125]

105. Paul, J.; Bhakar, S. Does Celebrity Image Congruence Influences Brand Attitude and Purchase Intention?. J. Promot. Manag.; 2018; 24, pp. 153-177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2017.1360826]

106. Um, N.-H. What Affects the Effectiveness of Celebrity Endorsement? Impact of Interplay among Congruence, Identification, and Attribution. J. Mark. Commun.; 2018; 24, pp. 746-759. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2017.1367955]

107. Choi, S.M.; Rifon, N.J. It Is a Match: The Impact of Congruence between Celebrity Image and Consumer Ideal Self on Endorsement Effectiveness: Celebrity Endorsement And Self-Concept. Psychol. Mark.; 2012; 29, pp. 639-650. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20550]

108. To Affinity and beyond: From Me to We, the Rise of Purpose-Led Brand. Available online: https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/thought-leadership-assets/pdf/accenture-competitiveagility-gcpr-pov.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2022).

109. Shivakanth Shetty, A.; Belavadi Venkataramaiah, N.; Anand, K. Brand Activism and Millennials: An Empirical Investigation into the Perception of Millennials towards Brand Activism. Probl. Perspect. Manag.; 2019; 17, pp. 163-175. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.14]