Brands and Social Justice Movements: The Effects of True versus Performative Allyship on Brand Evaluation

IF 2.1 Q3 BUSINESS
Nathalie Spielmann, S. Dobscha, L. Shrum
{"title":"Brands and Social Justice Movements: The Effects of True versus Performative Allyship on Brand Evaluation","authors":"Nathalie Spielmann, S. Dobscha, L. Shrum","doi":"10.1086/722697","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Following the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, many brands tried to convey their support of #BLM (Black Lives Matter) on social media (Blackout Tuesday). Some brands engaged in performative allyship (expressing allyship in words only), whereas other brands expressed support through words and deeds (true allyship). This research tests whether true versus performative brand allyship matters to consumers. We show that for the period following Blackout Tuesday, true ally brands performed better than performative ally brands and neutral brands (staying silent). Two experiments show that true ally brands are evaluated more positively than performative ally brands and that this effect is mediated by self-esteem and self-brand connection but moderated by race (greater effect of true allyship for Black consumers than White consumers). These findings suggest that brands have little to gain from acting as performative allies, and even less so toward the communities most affected by social injustice.","PeriodicalId":36388,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Consumer Research","volume":"8 1","pages":"83 - 94"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Association for Consumer Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722697","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Following the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, many brands tried to convey their support of #BLM (Black Lives Matter) on social media (Blackout Tuesday). Some brands engaged in performative allyship (expressing allyship in words only), whereas other brands expressed support through words and deeds (true allyship). This research tests whether true versus performative brand allyship matters to consumers. We show that for the period following Blackout Tuesday, true ally brands performed better than performative ally brands and neutral brands (staying silent). Two experiments show that true ally brands are evaluated more positively than performative ally brands and that this effect is mediated by self-esteem and self-brand connection but moderated by race (greater effect of true allyship for Black consumers than White consumers). These findings suggest that brands have little to gain from acting as performative allies, and even less so toward the communities most affected by social injustice.
品牌与社会正义运动:真正的同盟关系对品牌评价的影响
在2020年5月乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)被谋杀后,许多品牌试图在社交媒体上表达对#BLM (Black Lives Matter)的支持。有的品牌是表现性的同盟(仅用言语表达同盟),有的品牌是用言行表达支持(真正的同盟)。这项研究测试了真正的品牌联盟和表现性的品牌联盟对消费者是否重要。我们发现,在“停电星期二”之后的一段时间里,真正的盟友品牌的表现要好于表现盟友品牌和中立品牌(保持沉默)。两个实验表明,真正的盟友品牌比表现性的盟友品牌更积极地被评价,这种效应受自尊和自我品牌联系的中介,但受种族的调节(真正的盟友对黑人消费者的影响大于白人消费者)。这些发现表明,品牌从充当表演盟友中几乎得不到什么好处,对受社会不公正影响最严重的群体就更没有好处了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the Association for Consumer Research
Journal of the Association for Consumer Research Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
54
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信