1 Introduction

As sociopolitical issues grow in visibility and relevance (Davis, 2018), brands increasingly take public stands on divisive issues such as racism, LGBTQIA + rights, or climate change (Sarkar & Kotler, 2020) (e.g. Ben & Jerry’s supporting the Black Lives Matter movement and Patagonia fighting climate change). Not only are brands expected to take a stance (Accenture, 2019; Koch, 2019), brand activism can also help a brand differentiate (Sibai et al., 2021) and signal general responsibility and concern towards important social issues (Mirzaei et al., 2022).

Yet, often, brand activism backfires, especially when consumers perceive it as inauthentic (Vredenburg et al., 2020), or when their personal beliefs are misaligned with the activist issue (Mukherjee & Althuizen, 2020). Even when personal beliefs are aligned, current brand activism initiatives are largely ineffective in changing brand attitudes and consumers’ activist intentions (Mukherjee & Althuizen, 2020). We therefore examine one way how brand activism may be made more effective.

We propose that one such way is to actively involve consumers in the decision-making process that guides a brand’s activist decisions. We theorize that brands can increase consumers’ activist support behavior, and at the same time benefit commercially themselves, by seeking consumers’ advice on brand activism-relevant decisions, such as which activist movement to support. Below, we outline our theorizing.

Advice-giving involves the provision of a recommendation on the part of the advisor in response to a particular decision to be made on the part of the advisee (Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006). Individuals give advice to either influence the advisee’s behavior (Schaerer et al., 2018) or to help them make better decisions (Sniezek et al., 2004; Yaniv, 2004). Giving advice, however, also affects the behavior of the advisor (Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2018, 2019). Evidence shows that high school students earned higher report card grades after advising others on how to improve their motivation to study (Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2019). Similarly, individuals who advised others on how to behave in several self-regulatory domains such as saving money or losing weight were more motivated to engage in these behaviors themselves (Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2018). Advice-giving hence motivates the advisor to act in line with the advice they give. We thus propose that, in the context of brand activism, advising a brand on which activist movement to support will also increase a consumers’ likelihood to support the movement (H1).

We propose that what underlies our hypothesized effect of advice-giving on support behavior is a process of normative influence, i.e., a combination of personal (i.e., the extent to which one feels a moral obligation to engage in a behavior) and injunctive norms (i.e., the extent to which one feels an expectation to engage in a behavior) (Van der Werff et al., 2013). We reason as follows: the advice people give is often reflective of their personal beliefs and preferences (Hadar & Fischer, 2008). Extant work on cognitive dissonance (Aronson, 1992; Festinger, 1957) shows that individuals tend to behave in ways that are consistent with their self-beliefs (Cialdini & James, 2009; Cialdini et al., 1995) and avoid behaviors that make them feel or appear hypocritical (Fried & Aronson, 1995; Stone et al., 1997). Consequently, advice-giving should activate both the extent to which an advice-giver feels a moral obligation to behave in ways that are consistent with their beliefs (personal norm) and the extent to which they feel an expectation to behave consistently (injunctive norm). These normative influences allow consistency and avoid dissonance and should make advisors more likely to align their own behavior with their given advice (Dickerson et al., 1992; Stone & Fernandez, 2008; Van der Werff et al., 2013). We thus expect the effect of advice-giving on consumers’ support behavior to be mediated by a process of normative influence (H2).

We also test several alternative explanations. First, giving advice has often been conceptualized as an altruistic behavior that is driven by an empathetic concern for others (Feng, 2009; Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997). It is thus possible that advice-giving makes individuals more other-focused (Liu & Gal, 2011), which in turn increases their likelihood to engage in behaviors that benefit others (Simpson et al., 2021). Second, giving advice can also trigger more self-interested processes. Fuchs et al. (2010) found that advising brands on which products to market increases psychological ownership for the respective products, i.e., the feeling that the products are “mine” (Pierce et al., 2003), leading to a higher demand for these products.

Finally, we explore an important boundary condition of our effect: a brand’s disclosure of whether it followed or did not follow the advice of the consumer. An important motivator for individuals to give advice is the ability to influence the decision of the advisee (Schaerer et al., 2018). Research has shown that the extent to which individuals are able to influence others also affects the extent to which others can influence them, i.e., any successful attempt at exerting influence creates (expectations of) reciprocity (Mahmoodi et al., 2018). Our account of normative influence suggests that advice-giving not only activates an advisor’s need to act in ways that are consistent with their personal beliefs, but also in ways that are in line with what they feel is expected of them, i.e., the expectations of the brand. Given the reciprocal nature of influence, these expectations should be particularly high if the brand follows the advice but should diminish if the brand goes against the advice (a context where such an expectation is unwarranted). We therefore predict that the effect of advice-giving on normative influence and support behavior will be high for those whose advice was followed but will be weak for those whose advice was not followed (H3).

In sum, we test our predictions in four studies (see Fig. 1), all of which focus on brand activism campaigns in the context of climate activism. In Study 1A/B we test our main effect of advice-giving on both hypothetical and real support behavior. In Study 2 we show that normative influence is the dominant mediator of our effect. Finally, we test a practically relevant boundary condition in Study 3, by showing that the effectiveness of advice-giving depends on the brand’s decision to adhere to the advice.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Conceptual framework

Full size image

2 Studies 1A & 1B

Studies 1A and 1B test our key hypothesis (H1) that advice-giving will positively affect consumers’ support behavior. We test this for a fashion brand (1A) and replicate it for a beer brand (1B), assessing both hypothetical (1A/B) and real behavior (1B).

2.1 Method

In both Study 1A (pre-registered, https://aspredicted.org/ZXG_7NN, n = 315, Mage = 40.9 years, SD = 13.5, 50.2% female, 0.6% other, Prolific UK) and Study 1B (pre-registered, https://aspredicted.org/7T8_V3R, n = 314, Mage = 34.4 years, SD = 12.4, 48.7% female, 2.2% other, Prolific US, we excluded participants based on a manipulation check, see Online Appendix pp. 3–4) we asked participants to evaluate a brand activism campaign for a fashion and a beer brand respectively. We first introduced the focal brand (real, but unknown) and then randomly assigned participants to one of two conditions: advice-giving and control. In both, participants read descriptions of three environmental movements. In the advice-giving condition, we asked participants to advise the brand on which movement to support. In the control condition, we informed participants which of the three movements the brand decided to support (we randomized movement order). For details on stimuli, measures, and sample exclusion criteria across studies, see Online Appendix (pp. 1–6).

We then assessed participants’ movement support likelihood (1 = not likely at all, 7 = very likely, 1A, 1B), their actual willingness to sign up to receive news about the movement (0 = no, 1 = yes, 1B), as well as three important predictors of (environmental) activist behaviors: environmental consciousness (1 = not at all, 7 = very much; Leonidou et al., 2022), importance of climate change-related issues (1 = not at all, 7 = very important; Jasko et al., 2019), and political ideology (1 = very liberal, 7 = very conservative; Jost et al., 2017),Footnote 1 which we included as covariates in these and all follow-up studies (we conducted ANCOVAs on all key variables of interest in all studies and hence do not specify this further). Finally, we assessed age, gender, familiarity with the environmental movements (1 = not familiar at all, 7 = very familiar), attitudes towards the movements (1 = very negative, 7 = very positive), and whether they had heard of the brand (0 = no, 1 = yes).Footnote 2

2.2 Results and discussion

Study 1A

Participants in the advice-giving condition (M = 4.89, SD = 1.51) were more likely to support the movement than participants in the control condition (M = 4.50, SD = 1.65, F(1, 310) = 14.66, p = 0.006, η2 = 0.02). Environmental consciousness (F(1, 310) = 10.78, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.03) and importance of climate change-related issues (F(1, 310) = 5.84, p = 0.02, η2 = 0.02) but not political ideology (F(1, 310) = 1.27, p = 0.26, η2 = 0.004) affected support likelihood.

Study 1B

Advice-giving (M = 5.01, SD = 1.62) increased support likelihood compared to the control condition (M = 4.38, SD = 1.90, F(1, 309) = 4.95, p = 0.03, η2 = 0.02). Again, environmental consciousness (F(1, 309) = 3.87, p = 0.05, η2 = 0.01) and importance of climate change-related issues (F(1, 309) = 51.41, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.14) affected support likelihood, while political ideology did not (F(1, 309) = 0.52, p = 0.47, η2 = 0.002). Advice-giving also affected participants’ real behaviors. In the advice-giving condition, 50% were willing to sign up to receive updates from the movement compared to only 39.6% in the control condition (χ2 = 3.42, p = 0.06, φ = 0.10).

Studies 1A and 1B provide initial evidence that consumers who advise a brand on which activist movement to support are more likely to act in line with their advice.

3 Study 2

In Study 2, we show that it is mainly a process of normative influence that underlies the effect of advice-giving on consumers’ support behavior (H2). We further test several plausible alternative explanations: other-focus (Liu & Gal, 2011), which we operationalize as perceived selfishness and state self-construal (independence vs. interdependence), and psychological ownership (Fuchs et al., 2010).

3.1 Method

In Study 2 (pre-registered, https://aspredicted.org/3KK_CNN, n = 325, Mage = 35.5 years, SD = 15.4, 48.9% female, 1.2% other, Prolific US, we used the same exclusion criterion as in Studies 1A/B) participants read about the same movements as in Study 1A and either advised the brand on which movement to support or were informed about the brand’s decision. We then measured support behavior by assessing participants’ likelihood to engage in six activist-related behaviors (e.g., “visiting a local event organized by the movement”, α = 0.92). We further assessed normative influence with five items (α = 0.90) adapted from Effron and Monin (2010) and Staunton et al. (2014), other-focus by assessing participants’ perceived selfishness (α = 0.86) with four items from Hasford et al. (2022), and state self-construal (α = 0.96) with seven items from Shang et al. (2008), Simpson et al. (2021), and White & Peloza (2009), as well as psychological ownership with four items (α = 0.95) from Peck et al. (2021), all on 7-point scales. We assessed the same covariates and controlsFootnote 3 as before.

3.2 Results and discussion

Support behavior

Advice-giving led to higher overall support behavior (M = 3.71, SD = 1.69), compared to the control condition (M = 3.06, SD = 1.49, F(1, 320) = 13.31, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.04). Environmental consciousness (F(1, 320) = 13.01, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.04) and importance of climate change-related issues (F(1, 320) = 13.18, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.04), but not political ideology (F(1, 320) = 1.30, p = 0.26, η2 = 0.004) affected support behavior.

Normative influence

We also found a significant main effect on normative influence (F(1, 320) = 19.36, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.06). Participants in the advice-giving condition (M = 4.40, SD = 1.56) were more strongly influenced by personal and injunctive norms than those in the control condition (M = 3.68, SD = 1.44). Environmental consciousness (F(1, 320) = 13.52, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.04) and importance of climate change-related issues (F(1, 320) = 12.72, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.04) also affected our mediator, political ideology did not (F(1, 320) = 1.95, p = 0.16, η2 = 0.006).

Alternative processes

Advice-giving had no effect on selfishness (F(1, 323) = 0.61, p = 0.44, η2 = 0.002). Participants in the advice-giving condition (M = 2.71, SD = 1.50) felt equally selfish as those in the control condition (M = 2.83, SD = 1.31). However, participants who gave advice exhibited a stronger interdependent self-construal (M = 5.32, SD = 1.34), i.e., were more other-focused, than those in the control condition (M = 4.43, SD = 1.46, F(1, 323) = 33.12, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.09).

Finally, advising the brand on which movement to support increased participants’ psychological ownership for the movement (M = 2.85, SD = 1.53) compared with those in the control condition (M = 2.41, SD = 1.37, F(1, 323) = 7.47, p = 0.007, η2 = 0.02).

Mediation analysis

We conducted a mediation analysis (PROCESS Model 4, Hayes, 2017) with advice-giving as our independent variable, normative influence as our mediator, and support behavior as our dependent variable. To test the proposed alternative accounts, we included state self-construal and psychological ownership as competing mediators (due to the lack of a main effect, we did not include selfishness). Finally, we entered our covariates (see Studies 1A/B).

As predicted, normative influence mediated the effect of advice-giving on support behavior (indirect effect = 0.33, SE = 0.08, CI95[0.186, 0.485]). State self-construal (indirect effect = 0.12, SE = 0.04, CI95[0.037, 0.212]) and psychological ownership (indirect effect = 0.10, SE = 0.04, CI95[0.024, 0.197]) also mediated the effect, but did so to a lesser extent. Importance of climate change-related issues (β = 0.06, p = 0.33) and political ideology (β = -0.02, p = 0.66) had no effect on support behavior, but we found a marginally significant effect of environmental consciousness (β = 0.10, p = 0.07).

Study 2 replicates our main effect. It further shows that normative influence is the dominant driver of the effect of advice-giving on support behavior.

4 Study 3

Hitherto, participants who gave advice were never informed about the brand’s decision. This shows that advice-giving alone, independent of decision outcome, is powerful enough to exert normative influence, and consequently boost support behavior. In reality, brands will, at some point, disclose whether the advice actually influenced their decision. In Study 3, we test whether the effects of advice-giving depend on (i.e., are moderated by) the brand’s decision to follow the advice or not (H3). In addition to support behavior, we also test whether advice-giving reaps commercial benefits for the brand (i.e., increases brand liking).

4.1 Method

In Study 3 (pre-registered, https://aspredicted.org/2D7_5M6), 531 US Prolific workers, Mage = 40.04 years, SD = 13.8, 50.5% female, 1.5% other, we excluded participants who failed an attention check, see Online Appendix, pp. 3–4) evaluated the same brand activism campaign. We randomly assigned them to one of four conditions. We used the same control and advice-giving conditions as before and added two additional advice-giving conditions: one where we informed participants after their decision that, in line with their advice, the brand supported the movement they had advised them to support, and one where we told participants that, against their advice, the brand supported one of the other two movements (we randomized the display of the two movements participants had not selected as advice).

We assessed support behavior as in Study 1A, normative influence as in Study 2 (α = 0.91) and brand liking with three items (e.g., bad/good, (α = 0.97)). We measured the same covariates and controlsFootnote 4 as before.

4.2 Results and discussion

Support behavior

We found a significant difference in support behavior between conditions (F(3, 524) = 15.13, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.08). Compared to the control condition (M = 4.17, SD = 1.73), advice-giving boosted participants’ support likelihood when no decision outcome was provided (M = 4.65, SD = 1.89) and when the brand followed their advice (M = 4.84, SD = 1.71), but not when the brand did not (M = 3.98, SD = 1.78). Importance of climate change-related issues (F(1, 524) = 89.83, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.15) but neither environmental consciousness (F(1, 524) = 0.52, p = 0.47, η2 = 0.001) nor political ideology (F(1, 524) = 0.70, p = 0.40, η2 = 0.001) affected support behavior.

Normative influence

We also found a significant difference in normative influence between conditions (F(3, 524) = 28.25, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.14). Compared to the control condition (M = 3.55, SD = 1.48), advice-giving increased normative influence both when no decision outcome was communicated (M = 4.43, SD = 1.59) and when the brand followed their advice (M = 4.50, SD = 1.63), but not when the brand did not (M = 3.46, SD = 1.44). As before, importance of climate change-related issues had an effect (F(1, 524) = 0.51, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.12) but neither did environmental consciousness (F(1, 524) = 0.45, p = 0.51, η2 = 0.001) nor political ideology (F(1, 524) = 0.92, p = 0.34, η2 = 0.002).

Brand liking

The effect on brand liking was also significant (F(3, 524) = 26.12, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.13). Participants significantly liked the brand more when they were able to give advice both without decision disclosure (M = 5.79, SD = 1.19) and when they were informed that the brand followed their advice (M = 5.65, SD = 1.28). Not following the advice neither helped nor hurt the brand (M = 4.89, SD = 1.43) compared to the control condition (M = 4.99, SD = 1.47). Importance of climate change-related issues (F(1, 524) = 124.05, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.19), but not environmental consciousness (F(1, 524) = 1.52, p = 0.22, η2 = 0.003) and political ideology (F(1, 524) = 1.41, p = 0.24, η2 = 0.003) had an effect. For pairwise comparisons between conditions see Online Appendix, pp. 6–7.

Mediation analysis

We conducted a mediation analyses (PROCESS Model 4, Hayes, 2017) with the advice-giving conditions as our dummy coded independent variables (the control condition served as our baseline), normative influence as the mediator, support behavior as the dependent variable and environmental consciousness, importance of climate change-related issues and political ideology as covariates. Normative influence mediated the effect on support behavior when participants gave advice but were not informed about the outcome (indirect effect = 0.66, SE = 0.14, CI95[0.407, 0.941]), and when their advice was followed (indirect effect = 0.80, SE = 0.14, CI95[0.544, 1.074]), but not when their advice was not followed (indirect effect = 0.01, SE = 0.11, CI95[-0.214, 0.234]). Importance of climate change-related issues (β = 0.22, p < 0.001) but not environmental consciousness (β = 0.06, p = 0.15) and political ideology (β = -0.01, p = 0.76) affected support behavior.

Study 3 shows that disclosing a brand’s decision to follow the advice boosts normative influence and support behavior to the same extent as simple advice-giving. Not following the advice had neither a positive nor a negative effect. We also show that advice-giving has commercial benefits for the brand, by increasing brand liking.

5 General discussion

Although consumer expectations towards brands to take a stand on sociopolitical issues is increasing (Vredenburg et al., 2020), current brand activism remains ineffective (Mukherjee & Althuizen, 2020) and research on finding successful brand activism strategies is scarce. We make an important contribution to this limited literature by introducing advice-giving as a potential strategy for successful brand activism (Mukherjee & Althuizen, 2020; Vredenburg et al., 2020). We provide a realistic, actionable strategy that brands can use to make activism initiatives successful, both in terms of stimulating consumers’ activist behaviors and in commercially benefiting from the implementation themselves. Our results suggest that asking consumers for their advice on which activist movement to support boosts brand activism support behavior. We also show that even when the brand does not follow the advice, consumers are just as motivated to act and have equally positive attitudes towards the brand compared to when the brand does not ask for advice at all. This implies that seeking consumers’ advice in the context of brand activism only has positive or, at worst, neutral outcomes for the brand. Our research is thus among the first to empirically provide a tangible, real-life strategy for successful brand activism campaigns.

We also contribute to literature on advice-giving. Whilst the primary focus of advice-giving has hitherto been on the type of advice offered, adviser characteristics influencing advice-taking, and the effects of advice on recipients (Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006), only few studies focus on the behavioral and psychological consequences of advice-giving (Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2018; Schaerer et al., 2018). We add to this literature by offering novel insights into why advice-giving can produce positive outcomes. In particular, we show that normative influence acts as the dominant process behind the effect of advice-giving on support behavior (Van der Werff et al., 2013). Note, however, that state self-construal and psychological ownership – albeit to a weaker extent – also mediated our focal effect. This is in line with prior research (Fuchs et al., 2010; Liu & Gal, 2011) and suggests that our effect is multi-determined. Future research should look into contingencies under which these weaker processes may be more influential.

Our research has limitations. We only investigated brand activist causes related to climate change, a sociopolitical issue that is generally more positively valanced than issues surrounding other issues such as racism or women’s rights. Future research may look at whether our findings replicate in more polarizing contexts. Moreover, the activist movement options we provided were relatively equal, which was important to ensure that results would not be skewed by participants personal preferences – especially in the control group where participants had no control over the brand’s support decision. Allowing consumers not only to advise between (relatively equal) movements but between sociopolitical issues (see: Ben & Jerry’s) may affect our results, since different issues are likely to yield more variance in consumers’ attitudes.

In sum, our research provides insights into how brand activism strategies might be successfully implemented by firms, something currently lacking in the literature. We show that asking consumers’ advice on which activist movement a brand should support leads to more successful brand activism campaigns, both in terms of increased consumer activism support and positive commercial benefits for the. Brands can use our findings to optimize and plan their brand activism strategically and effectively.