Search

At times of crisis, companies strategically communicate their CSR initiatives, expecting benefits from such communication. Results from six studies indicate that the benefits a company receives from CSR communication during a crisis depend on their perceived status as "beneficiary" or "losing." Differentiating from other works, this paper shows that serendipitously benefiting from a crisis for a firm can lead to negative reactions from the public to the firm's crisis-relief actions. Using six studies of various crisis scenarios, such as the COVID pandemic, the Brazilian supply crisis, Turkey's wildfires, and the Ukraine-Russo war, we showed that when "beneficiary" (compared to "losing") companies in a crisis communicated their CSR activities, they faced less willingness from consumers to spread positive word-of-mouth and less willingness to help the company in public. The perceived sincerity of those companies mediated this negative effect, and larger firms suffered more from it as they would be perceived as less sincere. However, when large "beneficiary" companies communicate their in-kind (material) rather than monetary (financial) donations during a crisis, the negative effect of the company's status on the public's attitudes towards the firm decreases.

It is clear that harmful agents are targets of severe condemnation, but it is much less clear how perceivers conceptualize the agency of harmful agents. The current studies tested two competing predictions made by moral typecasting theory and the dehumanization literature. Across six studies, harmful agents were perceived to possess less agency than neutral (non-offending) and benevolent agents, consistent with a dehumanization perspective but inconsistent with the assumptions of moral typecasting theory. This was observed for human targets (Studies 1-2b, and 4-5) and corporations (Study 3), and across various gradations of harmfulness (Studies 3-4). Importantly, denial of agency to harmful agents occurred even when controlling for perceptions of the agent’s likeability (Studies 2a and 2b) and while using two different operationalizations of agency (Study 2a). Study 5 showed that harmful agents are denied agency primarily through an inferential process, and less through motivations to see the agent punished. Across all six studies, harmful agents were deemed less worthy of moral standing as a consequence of their harmful conduct and this reduction in moral standing was mediated through reductions in agency. Our findings clarify a current tension in the moral cognition literature, which have direct implications for the moral typecasting framework.

It is clear that harmful agents are targets of severe condemnation, but it is much less clear how perceivers conceptualize the agency of harmful agents. The current studies tested two competing predictions made by moral typecasting theory and the dehumanization literature. Across six studies, harmful agents were perceived to possess less agency than neutral (non-offending) and benevolent agents, consistent with a dehumanization perspective but inconsistent with the assumptions of moral typecasting theory. This was observed for human targets (Studies 1-2b, and 4-5) and corporations (Study 3), and across various gradations of harmfulness (Studies 3-4). Importantly, denial of agency to harmful agents occurred even when controlling for perceptions of the agent’s likeability (Studies 2a and 2b) and while using two different operationalizations of agency (Study 2a). Study 5 showed that harmful agents are denied agency primarily through an inferential process, and less through motivations to see the agent punished. Across all six studies, harmful agents were deemed less worthy of moral standing as a consequence of their harmful conduct and this reduction in moral standing was mediated through reductions in agency. Our findings clarify a current tension in the moral cognition literature, which have direct implications for the moral typecasting framework.

This roundtable is a forum to discuss the multifaceted phenomenon of online social influence(rs), which has implications for influencer marketing effectiveness and consumer decision-making and well-being. It aims to bridge currently disparate knowledge on influencers and their followers and to develop a comprehensive agenda for future research.