Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

ISSN: 1069-6679 (Print) 1944-7175 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mmtp20

The Power of Politics in Branding

Geraldo Matos, Gema Vinuales & Daniel A. Sheinin

To cite this article: Geraldo Matos, Gema Vinuales & Daniel A. Sheinin (2017) The Power
of Politics in Branding, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 25:2, 125-140, DOI:
10.1080/10696679.2016.1270768

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2016.1270768

Published online: 16 Feb 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mmtp20

Download by: [University of Newcastle, Australia] Date: 26 February 2017, At: 05:59
 THE POWER OF POLITICS IN BRANDING
Geraldo Matos, Gema Vinuales, and Daniel A. Sheinin

Corporations have generally avoided publically linking their brands with political positions, yet
recently brands have become more politically active. Brands like Chevrolet and Hobby Lobby
were linked with marriage equality, yet little research exists regarding brands and politics. Our
studies show: 1) consumers associate brands as liberal/conservative when brands are linked with
political positions; 2) self-brand connection (SBC) is differentially impacted depending on the
consumer’s political orientation and the political orientation with which the brand is linked; 3)
misalignment between the brand/consumer orientation weakens SBC; and 4) SBC mediates the
relationship among brand/consumer political orientation, and brand attitude and purchase
intention.

People supporting marriage equality are usually cate-
gorized as liberals who vote Democratic (Haider-
Markel and Joslyn 2013). This categorization can
generate strong positive and negative emotions,
especially in the present highly-polarized political
climate. The percentage of Americans who identify
as moderate decreased by nine points in 22 years to
34 percent in 2014 (Saad 2015), while more
Americans identify themselves at the party extremes
(Saad 2012). Further evidence of increased polariza-
tion is exhibited by the post-war record-low produc-
tivity of the last two Congresses (Desilver 2014), and
the $1.4 billion of profit earned by the partisan
television networks Fox News and MSNBC
(Mitchell and Holcomb 2015).
However, it is not as well-known if brands linked
with marriage equality would be similarly categorized
as liberal. If so, it is also poorly understood if this
categorization would generate a strong emotional
response. This question has become acutely important
in recent years. Ironically, as the political environment
has become more partisan, companies are more aggres-
sively and publically linking their brands with political
Geraldo Matos (MBA, University of Wisconsin), Assistant
Professor of Marketing, Gabelli School of Business, Roger
Williams University, Bristol, RI, gmatos@rwu.edu
Gema Vinuales (Ph.D., University of Rhode Island), Assistant
Professor of Marketing, College of Business and Economics,
Towson University, Towson, MD, gvinuales@towson.edu
Daniel A. Sheinin (Ph.D., Columbia University), Professor of
Marketing, College of Business Administration, University of
Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, dsheinin@uri.edu
positions. Recently Chevrolet, Guinness, and Honey
Maid were linked with marriage equality, while
Barilla, Chick-Fil-A, and The Salvation Army were
linked with traditional marriage. The issue became
linked with so many companies that marriage equality
became a “marketing tool” (Goldhill 2014). In contrast,
historically most firms have been reluctant to associate
their brands with politics. As Michael Jordan is reported
to have famously rationalized, Republicans and
Democrats alike buy sneakers (Smith 1995).
While companies linking political positions with
brands has become increasingly prevalent, surprisingly
little research explores the issue. This is despite the
knowledge that political orientation influences a battery
of behaviors and cognitive processes (e.g., Carney et al.
2008). In fact, papers studying “lifestyle politics” have
found political meaning in consumption decisions across
an array of categories such as fashion, recreation, and
entertainment. Specifically, a number of factors influence
political consumerism, which represents the notion of
purchasing only from companies with shared values
(Shah et al. 2007). With a now sizable literature examin-
ing the implications of brands being associated with
causes (Andrews et al. 2014; Kerr and Das 2013;
Varadarajan and Menon 1988) and social responsibility
(Biehal and Sheinin 2007; Briggs et al. 2016; Brown and
Dacin 1997), the lack of attention to brands and politics is
even more unexpected. Importantly, compared with
cause-related marketing, associating brands with political
positions carries more risk because self-brand connection
(SBC) may be jeopardized. SBC is based on perceived
identification and personal connection with a brand,

Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, vol. 25, no. 2 (Spring 2017), pp. 125–140.
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1069–6679 (print) / ISSN 1944–7175 (online)
DOI: 10.1080/10696679.2016.1270768
126 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
and the extent to which a brand reflects the self (Escalas
and Bettman 2003).
If brands are linked with positions that are opposed
to a person’s political affiliation, then SBC may weaken
due to the strong links between political beliefs and
sense of self (e.g., Jost, Federico, and Napier 2009) espe-
cially in the current polarized political environment.
However, it is unknown if political beliefs can even
become associated with brands, and, if so, what the
implications of such associations might be. For exam-
ple, if Hewlett Packard is linked with gun control,
would the brand be perceived as liberal? If so, would
SBC change, or would effects differ for individuals who
identify as Democratic versus those who identify as
Republican?
Many political beliefs are intertwined with religious
beliefs, such as with marriage equality. Although the
interaction between political and religious beliefs is
outside the scope of this article, we measure the effects
of religion to isolate and tease out its influence.
Nevertheless, religion looms in the background of any
research investigating brands’ political positions. In
three studies, we alter whether brands are linked with
liberal or conservative positions, and examine the
implications for people with different party affiliations
on SBC.
This research contributes to marketing knowledge by
introducing the notion of politics to the branding lit-
erature. In so doing, it also extends the literature on
cause-related marketing to investigate whether associat-
ing brands with political positions leads to different
downstream consequences. Further, this research bol-
sters understanding of the links between brands and
consumers’ sense of self by studying how very personal
belief systems, such as political affiliations, may alter
SBC.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Political party affiliation influences how people behave
toward others, travel, and decorate their homes
(Carney et al. 2008). Republicans have an interpretive
frame of control, discipline, and self-restraint, while
Democrats have an interpretive frame of development,
expansion, and self-fulfillment (McAdams et al. 2013).
In general, party differences mirror and ultimately
strengthen social and individualistic preferences, and
reflect people’s value orientations. In fact, party
affiliation is a strong predictor of a myriad of attitudes,
beliefs, and preferences (Jost, Federico, and Napier
2009). For example, exposure to people or objects
linked with the same party affiliation caused increased
positive affect and personal satisfaction (Wakslak et al.
2007).
Importantly, deep political divides now exist in the
United States, with major differences among the states
and partisan populations based on psychographic com-
monalities such as religion (Levendusky and Pope
2011). The dramatic increase in polarization has
increased the emotionality intensity of political dis-
course, as demonstrated by the growth of extremism
(Avlon 2013), and the popularity of candidates like
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders (Kristof 2016;
Krugman 2016). Moreover, 39 percent of the U.S. elec-
torate now self-identify as Independent, an increase of
10 percentage points since 2000 (Sago, Markus, and
Joffe-Block 2016). This is higher than the percentages
of those who self-identify with either party. This may
suggest many are becoming less unidimensional in
their political views. Therefore, even if people self-iden-
tify as a Democrat, they may nevertheless hold some
positions that are more consistent with Republican
ideology. We discuss the implications of this trend in
future research.
Critically, theses studies focus on individuals with
political positions not brands. Although marketers
have long embraced linking brands with causes
(Varadarajan and Menon 1988) and positions of social
responsibility (e.g., Brown and Dacin 1997), their will-
ingness to link with political positions is more recent.
The rational for this trend is unclear, but may be moti-
vated by the greater need to differentiate with reso-
nance. Brands communicate in a myriad of voices
across ever-fractionating media with multiple messages
in an increasingly cluttered environment to consumers
with decreasing attention spans. A significant challenge
in branding is to break through with highly targeted,
emotionally-resonant messages. Linking brands with
causes, charities, and political positions targets a psy-
chographic segment, and can generate beliefs that are
strongly emotional and untethered to perceptions
about product functionality. Marketers hope these
associations help develop brand personalities, build
customer relationships, and establish and strengthen
SBC. However, linking brands with causes and charities
is increasingly common, and differentiation may be

more difficult to achieve. For example, so many brands
linked with breast cancer and its pink-ribbon symbol
that they became ubiquitous and unmemorable (Lerner
2010). Companies may believe that linking their
brands with political positions has greater potential
for impact and memorability.
Brands have clearly evolved from passive labels to
active partners in customers’ lives. Customers imbue
brands with personalities (Aaker 1997), form relation-
ships with brands (Fournier 1998), and prefer brands
with personality traits congruent with their own (Aaker
1999). Indeed, customers humanize and anthropomor-
phize brands, and modify their behavior to promote
interactions with brands they like (Aggarwal and
McGill 2012). Customers can develop: strong devotion
to (Ortiz, Reynolds, and Franke 2013), feelings of
engagement with (Vivek et al. 2014), emotional attach-
ment to (Park et al. 2010; Malar et al. 2011) and even
love for (Batra, Ahuvia, and Bagozzi 2012) brands.
Every aspect of strategy can influence the formation
and evolution of consumer-brand relationships, even
something as seemingly nondiagnostic as product
packaging (Underwood 2003).
Thus, customers can form deep bonds with brands
and products, to the extent of integrating their self-
concept (e.g., Belk 1988; Escalas 2004; e.g., James
1890). This is conceptualized as SBC (Escalas and
Bettman 2003). SBC is so powerful that it influences
customers’ self-construction. Customers are more likely
to form a SBC when the brand is associated with their
own reference group (Escalas and Bettman 2005), and
has a compelling story (Escalas 2004). In fact, actual
(versus ideal) self-congruence with a brand positively
impacts the strength of SBC (Malar et al. 2011). The
intensity and personal nature of SBC suggest there may
be significant implications of brands linked with poli-
tical positions, especially in the emotionally-charged
present environment. To be sure, SBC does not always
influence behavior, as consumers do not always act in
the manner that maximizes their self-interest (Sen and
Bhattacharya 2001). However, a preponderance of evi-
dence converges on the overall importance of SBC in
guiding consumer behavior.
The brand literature is replete with examples of cus-
tomers transferring their images and perceptions about
symbols, objects, and causes linked with a brand to
their beliefs about the brand. For example, customers’
Spring 2017 127
images of celebrities (McCracken 1989), causes
(Varadarajan and Menon 1988), and socially responsi-
ble actions linked with brands are transferred to the
brand. This occurs because customers have already
imbued strong meanings in these celebrities and
causes. We expect political positions to operate in the
same manner because of the intense meanings and
emotions customers associate with their ideology.
H1: A brand will be perceived as more liberal
(conservative) when it is linked with a lib-
eral (conservative) position than when it is
linked with a conservative (liberal) position.
Evidence suggests there are negative consequences if
the trust underlying a brand relationship is betrayed or
violated. SBC is an important dimension of a brand
relationship (Fournier 1998; Swaminathan, Page, and
Gurhan-Canli 2007), but as a component of self-iden-
tity other work indicates a bias toward preservation of
self-concept. Balance theory represents the notion that
people attempt to correct perceived imbalances among
groups of objects (Heider 1946). In the brand-relation-
ship literature, balance theory is used to explain the
finding that consumers work to maintain their self-
concept status quo in linking recent consumption
experiences with personal values (Woodside 2004; see
also Woodside and Chebat 2001), and are more likely
to make product selections that are consistent with
existing self-beliefs to preserve cognitive consistency
(Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995). Similarly, congruity the-
ory (Osgood and Tannenbaum 1955) accounts for con-
sumers’ attempts to shape the image of favored
products with self-concept (Sirgy 1982).
Therefore, in order to weaken SBC, the relationship
violation must be perceived as significant to overcome
the bias toward preservation of self-concept. However,
SBC is also a brand construct. According to Dawar and
Pillutla (2000), brand equity is fragile, and this fragility is
poorly understood. Compounding this problem, they
indicate most branding research examines brand con-
structs as independent versus dependent variables.
Work has been conducted on the effects of violations
on constructs fundamental to brand relationships, such
as product-harm crises on brand trust and desirability
(Dawar and Pillutla 2000), delays in service delivery on
brand evaluations (Roehm and Brady 2007), and negative
information that changes relationship norms (e.g.,
128 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
Aggarwal 2004) on perceptions of good business practice
and brand evaluations. A common theme of this work is
brand violations and failures generate strong responses
(Smith, Bolton, and Wagner 1999), and brand percep-
tions and relationships can be weakened by even one
instance. When a violation occurs, the social exchange
and equity dimensions of the relationship are thrown out
of balance, and a perceived loss occurs (Walster,
Berscheid, and Walster 1973). The magnitude of this
loss is proportional to the perceived magnitude of the
violation (Smith, Bolton, and Wagner 1999). According
to prospect theory, losses are more impactful than gains
(Kahneman and Tversky 1979). Consumers expect no
violations, especially with high-equity brands (Roehm
and Brady 2007), and therefore an initial infraction
weighs heavily (Berry and Parasuraman 1991). The impli-
cations of a violation can be so damaging that stock prices
can be depressed by as much as 7 percent (Dawar and
Pillutla 2000).
Similarly, a misalignment between brand political-
position and individual political-affiliation should be
perceived as an impactful norm violation of brand
trust and the underlying brand relationship, thus
weakening SBC. This is even more strongly expected
in a communal relationship context. A communal
relationship exists when an individual is focused on
the needs and concerns of others. In contrast, an
exchange relationship exists when an individual is
focused on self-interest, or what he/she will receive
in return for taking a particular action (Aggarwal
2004; Clark and Mills 1993). Communal relation-
ships are especially vulnerable to norm violations,
which generate more negative brand evaluations
compared with the context when information is con-
sistent with the salient norm (Aggarwal 2004). When
brands are linked with political positions, this should
cause the communal relationship to be salient
because political positions represent shared, societal
beliefs that are well beyond one individual’s self-
interest (e.g., Bar-Tal 2001). This further strengthens
the diagnosticity of a misalignment by linking socie-
tal beliefs with those of a brand. Based on this theo-
rizing, we predict:
H2: SBC will strengthen when there is an align-
ment between brand political-position and
individual political-affiliation than when
there is a misalignment.
H3: SBC will weaken when there is a misalign-
ment between brand political-position and
individual political-affiliation compared
with when brand political position is absent.
As important as these changes to SBC can be for
brands, SBC can also have downstream consequences
on attitude and behavior. In this manner, SBC can
mediate the relationship between brands linked with
political positions, and brand attitude and purchase
intentions. This is consistent with recent research
demonstrating the significant mediating role of SBC
on more diagnostic outcomes, including brand advo-
cacy (Kemp, Jillapalli, and Becerra 2014), brand attitude
(He, Chen, and Alden 2015), and purchase intentions
(Paharia et al. 2011). Therefore, we predict:
H4: SBC will mediate the relationships between
position and affiliation, and attitude and
purchase intention.
METHOD
Study 1
Design and Sample
Study 1 tests H1, H2, and H3 and uses a 3 (Brand
political position: conservative, liberal, and control) x
3 (Individual political affiliation: Republican,
Democrat, and Independent) between-subjects design.
Participants (n = 164) stemmed from Amazon’s
mTurk online panel, and represented a heterogeneous
mix of demographic groups in terms of gender identi-
fication, race, age, and income (see Appendix 1).
Amazon’s panel effectively delivers external validity
(Berinsky, Huber, and Lenz 2012; Horton, Rand, and
Zeckhauser 2011).
Independent Variables and Procedure
A pretest was conducted to find a strongly polarizing
political position and a stimulus brand. A randomized
list of various causes, including traditional marriage
and same-sex marriage, was given to participants.
These participants (n = 20), sourced from Amazon’s
mTurk panel, were then asked to provide their assess-
ment for how each item rated on a seven-point scale

where 1 indicated the cause was strongly associated
with the Democratic party, and 7 indicated it was
strongly associated with the Republican party. The
pretest results indicated traditional marriage was clo-
sely aligned with Republicans (M = 6.40), while same-
sex marriage was aligned with Democrats (M = 1.40; t
(19) = 15.81; p < .001).
We sought a familiar stimulus brand that was
symbolic yet not known for being linked with any
political positions. Nike fit the selection criteria
because it was highly familiar (M = 5.92 using a
three-item scale from Kent and Allen (1994) and
politically neutral (M = 4.26). Moreover, Nike has
been identified as a symbolic brand (e.g., Chernev,
Hamilton, and Gal 2011). Nike represented a strong
test of our hypotheses because its high familiarity
meant that beliefs should not readily change, espe-
cially with one source of new information
(Rumelhart 1980; Mandler 1984; Taylor and
Crocker 1981). Brand political position (subse-
quently referred to as “position”) was manipulated
by creating a fictitious article in the business press
about an announcement from Nike’s CEO. The con-
servative version linked Nike with Athletes for
Traditional Family, while the liberal one linked the
brand with Athletes for Marriage Equality (see
Appendix 2).). Individual political affiliation was a
measured variable (subsequently referred to as
“affiliation”).
Participants completed an online survey that took
about 10 minutes in exchange for a nominal fee.
They first read one of the two versions of the
announcement (except in the control condition,
where they went straight to the dependent mea-
sures), which was positioned as sourcing from “a
major international news website with a global repu-
tation for total accuracy.” Afterward, they completed
the dependent measures, covariates, and manipula-
tion checks, and provided demographic information.
Then, to be properly debriefed, participants read:
“Please note that the announcement from the Nike
brand you read at the beginning of the survey is not
real. The announcement was created by the
researchers for the purpose of this study. Please do
not discuss the survey with others since it may lead
to response bias. Please move to the next window to
receive your survey validation code.” Finally, parti-
cipants were thanked for their time.
Spring 2017 129
Measure
The dependent measures were brand politicization and
SBC. Factor analysis revealed two factors, with loadings
consistent with the manifest variables defined below. We
define brand politicization as the extent to which the
brand was associated with liberal/conservative beliefs,
and measured it by two (α = .93) seven-point scales with
strongly liberal/strongly conservative endpoints:
– I feel the Nike brand holds views that are
______________
– The Nike brand’s political orientation would best
be described as ____________
SBC was measured by seven (α = .95) seven-point scales
(Escalas and Bettman 2003) with disagree/agree endpoints:
– The Nike brand reflects who I am very well
– I can identify with the Nike brand
– I feel a connection to the Nike brand
– I can use the Nike brand to communicate who I
am to other people
– I think the Nike brand helps me become the per-
son I want to be
– I consider the Nike brand to be “me” (it reflects
who I consider myself to be or the way I want to
present myself to others)
– The Nike brand does not suit me well
We also assessed religiosity as a feasible covariate
because of its strong link with the political position.
Religiosity was measured by three (α = .93) seven-point
scales (Shah et al. 2007) with disagree/agree endpoints:
– I believe in God
– Religion is an important part of my life
– It is important to me to find spiritual fulfillment
Religiosity was not significant in any relevant
ANCOVAs so it was dropped from further discussion.
Hypothesis Testing
Due to the factor analysis and high reliability, composite
scores for SBC and brand politicization were created by
averaging across the individual items of each scale. A 3
(position) x 1 ANOVA with brand politicization as the
dependent variable was significant (F(2,161) = 30.06; p <
.001) and post-hoc Tukey HSD tests show that all the
mean differences were significant at the .05 level.
130 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
Confirming hypothesis H1, when Nike was linked with
traditional marriage, it was perceived as more conserva-
tive (M = 5.69, SD = 1.40) than when it was linked with
same-sex marriage (M = 3.34, SD = 1.75; t(93.30)1 = 7.41;
p < .0001). Strengthening the finding, in both cases,
brand politicization was demonstrated versus the control
conditions (M = 4.26; SD = 1.40; t(112) = 5.34; p < .0001
versus traditional marriage and t(93.91) = 2.99; p <. 01
versus same-sex marriage).
Consistent with hypothesis H2, position and affilia-
tion influenced SBC. A 2 (position) x 2 (affiliation)
ANOVA on SBC revealed the predicted crossover inter-
action (F(3,55) = 9.77; p <. 001; η2 = .15) with no main
effects (each p > .50). When position and affiliation
were aligned, SBC was stronger than when it was mis-
aligned (see Figure 1).). Republicans displayed stronger
SBC when Nike was linked with traditional marriage (M
= 5.11, SD = 1.53) than with same-sex marriage (M =
3.43, SD = 1.67; t(20) = 2.46; p < .05). Similarly,
Democrats exhibited stronger SBC when Nike was
linked with same-sex marriage (M = 4.63, SD = 1.67)
than traditional marriage (M = 3.30, SD = 2.11; t(27.89)
= 2.07; p <. 05). Confirming hypothesis H3, SBC was
weaker with misalignment than when the brand was
not linked with a political position (the control condi-
tion). Democrats in the traditional-marriage condition
exhibited weaker SBC (M = 3.30, SD = 2.11) than those
in the control condition (M = 4.78, SD = 1.68; t(21) =
1.48; p < .05). For Republicans, although the mean
Figure 1
SBC – Study 1
6
Self-Brand Connection
4.78
5
4.63
4 Position
3.3
3
2 Control
1
0
Democrat
Personal Political Affiliation
difference is not significant between the same-sex con-
dition (M = 3.43, SD = 1.67) and the control (M = 4.56,
SD = 1.81; t(20) = 1.51; p < .15), there is a medium-to
large-effect (Cohen’s d = .65). With Independents, SBC
did not change with different positions (p > .60).
Finally, when position and affiliation were aligned,
SBC did not change versus the control (each p > .40).
Discussion
Study 1 shows brand politicization occurs. Brand political
beliefs change when it is linked with a political position.
Moreover, when positions and affiliations are aligned, SBC
is stronger than when they are misaligned. Finally, when
they are misaligned, SBC weakens versus the control con-
dition. Study 2 seeks to replicate these findings using a
different political position and a larger sample size.
Study 2
Design and Sample
The study used a 3 (Brand political position: conservative,
liberal, and control) x 3 (Individual political affiliation:
Republican, Democrat, and Independent) between-sub-
jects design with different participants (n = 315) from the
same online panel. The sample was heterogeneous in
terms of age, race, income levels, and political affiliation
to a similar extent as Study 1.
5.11
4.56 Brand Political
3.43 Republican
Democrat
Republican

Independent Variables and Procedure
Position was manipulated and affiliation measured as in
Study 1 except that the position was the Affordable Care
Act (see Appendix 2). The procedure was identical to the
one used in Study 1.
Measures
The dependent variables (α = .97 for brand politiciza-
tion and α = .95 for SBC) and religiosity covariate (α =
.94) were measured as in Study 1, with religiosity once
again not being significant.
Manipulation Check
We added a manipulation check in Study 2 by having
participants click one of four alternatives: Nike sup-
ports or opposes President Obama’s Affordable Care
Act (ACA), or Nike supports or opposes the right to
bear arms in stores. Over 97 percent of participants
were correct, and those who were not were eliminated.
Results
A 2 (position) x 1 ANOVA with brand politicization as
the dependent variable was significant (F(2,312) =
104.24; p < .001). Confirming hypothesis H1, brand
politicization occurred and participants who read the
Figure 2
SBC – Study 2
6
Self-Brand Connection
5
4.06
4 4.06
3.74
3 2.88
2 Control
0
Democrat
Personal Political Affiliation
Spring 2017 131
anti-ACA message perceived Nike as more conservative
(M = 5.38; SD = 1.32) than those who read the pro-ACA
message (M = 2.80; SD = 1.41; t(200) = 13.41; p < .001).
Strengthening the finding, in both cases, brand politici-
zation occurred versus the control condition (M = 3.71;
SD = 1.12; t(207) = 9.94; p < .001 versus anti-ACA and t
(200.35) = 5.25; p <. 001 versus pro-ACA).
Consistent with hypothesis H2, position and affilia-
tion influenced SBC (see Figure 2). A 2 (position) x 2
(affiliation) ANOVA on SBC revealed the predicted
crossover interaction (F(3,137) = 16.07; p < .0001)
with no main effects (each p > .30). When position
and affiliation were aligned, SBC was greater than
when they were misaligned. Republicans displayed
stronger SBC with the message opposing ACA (M =
4.13 SD = 1.58) than the one supporting it (M = 2.95;
SD = 1.42, t(62) = 3.10; p < .01). Similarly, Democrats
exhibited stronger SBC with the message supporting
ACA (M = 3.74 SD = 1.65) than the one opposing it
(M = 2.88; SD = 1.21, t(73) = 2.60; p < .01).
Confirming hypothesis H3, SBC was weaker with mis-
alignment than when the brand was not linked with a
political position (the control condition). Democrats in
the anti-ACA condition exhibited weaker SBC (M = 2.88,
SD = 2.11) than those in the control condition (M =
4.06, SD=1.68; t(70) = 3.71; p < .001). Moreover,
Republicans in the pro-ACA condition displayed weaker
SBC (M = 2.95, SD = 1.67) than the control (M = 4.06,
SD = 1.81; t(70) = 2.96; p < .01). With Independents,
4.13 Brand Political
Position
Republican
2.95
Democrat
Republican
132 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
SBC did not change with different positions (p > .05).
Finally, when position and affiliation were aligned, SBC
did not change versus the control (each p > .30).
Discussion
Study 2 replicated the findings of Study 1 with a new
political position, and a different and larger participant
population. However, thus far we have only examined
the effects on brand politicization and SBC, and not
more potentially diagnostic and behavioral dependent
variables such as brand attitude and purchase inten-
tion. In Study 3, we remedy this limitation by obtain-
ing these two dependent measures. We also change
both the brand and the political position to enhance
generalizability. Finally, we investigate process, and
more deeply explore the role of SBC. Specifically, we
examine whether SBC mediates the relationship
between position and affiliation, and brand attitude
and purchase intention modeled separately.
Study 3
Design and Sample
The study employs a 2 (Position: conservative and lib-
eral) x 3 (Affiliation: Republican, Democrat, and
Independent) between-subjects design with different
participants (n = 165) from the same online panel.
Demographically, the sample is again heterogeneous
along the lines as described in Study 1.
Independent Variables and Procedure
Position was manipulated and affiliation measured as
in Studies 1 and 2 except that the position was gun
control. We used Subway as the stimulus brand (see
Appendix 2). The procedure was identical to that used
previously.
Measures
The dependent variables (α = .99 for brand politiciza-
tion and α = .96 for SBC) were measured as before. The
religiosity covariate was not obtained due to its insig-
nificance in prior studies, and its expected lower rele-
vance with the gun control issue. We also obtained two
additional dependent measures: brand attitude (α = .94)
and purchase intent (α = .83). Factor analysis confirmed
the existence of two latent variables. The items for
brand attitude were:
– I feel negative about the Subway brand
– I like the Subway brand
– I feel good about the Subway brand
The items for purchase intention were:
– I will make a purchase from the Subway brand in
the next week
– I will make a purchase from the Subway brand in
the next month
– I will make a purchase from the Subway brand in
the next three months
Due to the existence of two factors and each factor’s
high reliability, items for brand attitude and purchase
intention were each summed and then averaged for use
in the analyses.
Manipulation Check
As in Study 2, participants who did not select the
appropriate political position were eliminated (93 per-
cent of participants were correct).
Results
Confirming hypothesis H1, brand politicization
occurred. When Subway was linked with gun rights, it
was considered more conservative (M = 5.79) than
when it was linked with gun control (M = 2.47; t(151)
= 14.62; p < .001).
Consistent with hypothesis H2, position and affilia-
tion influenced SBC. A 2 (position) x 2 (affiliation)
ANOVA on SBC revealed the predicted crossover inter-
action (F(3,107) = 38.00; p < .001) with no main effects
(each p > .15). When position and affiliation were
aligned, SBC was greater than when it was misaligned
(see Figure 3). Republicans indicated stronger SBC with
the gun rights message (M = 4.37) than with gun con-
trol (M = 2.14; t(38) = 4.92; p < .001). Similarly,
Democrats showed stronger SBC with the gun control
message (M = 3.83, SD = 1.72) than with gun rights (M
= 2.41, SD = 1.34; t(55.39) = 3.81; p < .001). Similar to
Studies 1 and 2, position did not change the SBC of
Independents (p > .05).

Figure 3
SBC – Study 3
Self-Brand Connection 6
5 4.37
3.83
4
3 2.41
2.14
2
0
Democrat
Personal Political Affiliation
Next, we used the PROCESS procedure, Model 4
(Hayes 2013) to test for a mediating role of SBC. The
procedure utilizes a bootstrapping approach and sets a
relationship as significant if the 95 percent confidence
interval (CI) does not include zero. In the absence of
the proposed SBC mediator, the direct effect of the
position x affiliation interaction on purchase intention
was significant (β = 1.65; SE = .51; t = 3.25; p = .001; 95
percent CI: .643, 2.653). Republicans indicated a higher
purchase intention from Subway with the gun rights
message (M = 5.10) than with gun control (M = 2.69; t
(38) = 5.34; p < .001). Similarly, Democrats showed a
higher purchase intention gun control message (M =
4.67) than gun rights (M = 2.97; t(69) = 3.78; p < .001).
In the presence of the mediator, the position x affilia-
tion interaction influenced SBC (β = 1.57; SE = .43; t =
3.60; p < .001; 95 percent CI: .706, 2.432), SBC influ-
enced purchase intention (β = .90; SE = .07; t = 12.55; p
< .001; 95 percent CI: .755, 1.038), and the relationship
between the position x affiliation interaction and pur-
chase intention was no longer significant (β = .24; SE =
.34; t = .70; p >.48; 95 percent CI: –440, .923).
Validating hypothesis H4, a 95 percent CI around the
indirect effect of the position x affiliation interaction
on purchase intention was significant and did not
include zero (β = 1.41; 95 percent CI: .745, 2.298),
supporting the mediating role of SBC (see Figure 4).
Likewise, the mediation model holds when attitude
Spring 2017 133
Brand Political
Position
Republican
Democrat
Republican
toward the brand is the dependent measure. The 95
percent CI for the indirect effect of the position x
affiliation interaction on attitude toward the Subway
brand did not include zero (95 percent CI: .786, 2.447).
DISCUSSION & MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
In three studies, we show that when politically-neutral
brands are linked with political positions, consumers
perceive them to be more liberal or conservative.
Moreover, a misalignment between this position and
an individual’s political affiliation causes weaker SBC
than an alignment. Specifically, a misalignment leads
to a weaker SBC versus when the brands are not linked
with any positions. Finally, we demonstrate a more
complex process, where brand political positions influ-
ence brand attitude and ultimately purchase intention,
in which SBC mediates these relationships. The results
occurred with highly familiar brands, in which SBC
would be strongly established across many years of
knowledge and experience. These brands represent
conservative tests of the hypotheses, because changing
the magnitude of such strongly-held beliefs would typi-
cally require much more than one paragraph of new
information. This suggests the powerful emotions that
resonate with political positions.
This research extends the political psychology,
brand communications, SBC, and brand management
134 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
Figure 4
Full Mediation Model – Study 3
SBC
1.57***
Brand Pol. Position
1.65** (.24ns)
X
Individual Pol. Affiliation
** p <.01
***p <.001
literatures. The knowledge that political positions are
so powerful that they influence perceptions of inani-
mate objects such as brands extends the growing litera-
ture on the ability of political beliefs to shape a wide
variety of judgments about nonpolitical stimuli (e.g.,
Carney et al. 2008; Jost, Federico, and Napier 2009;
McAdams et al. 2013). Party affiliation is a strong pre-
dictor of a myriad of attitudes, beliefs, and preferences
(Jost, Federico, and Napier 2009). Since exposure to
people or objects linked with the same party affiliation
caused increased positive affect and personal satisfac-
tion (Wakslak et al. 2007), it suggests affect and satis-
faction may mediate the relationship between political
position and SBC. This would be consistent with the
powerful emotional resonance associated with self-con-
gruity (e.g., Sirgy et al. 2008).
In terms of brand communications, brands have used
links with causes, charities, and socially-responsible
actions to add emotional resonance, differentiation, and
effective psychographic targeting (e.g., Brown and Dacin
1997; Varadarajan and Menon 1988). Clearly, links with
political positions offer the same potential, especially
given the high polarization and emotionally-charged pre-
sent political environment (Saad 2015) and the invasion
of politics into an ever-growing part of American lives
(Abramowitz and Saunders 2005; Jost 2006). These impli-
cations further enhance the notion that brands can carry
personalities (Aaker 1997) and be intertwined with cus-
tomers’ senses of self via SBC (Escalas and Bettman 2003).
The potent feelings circulating many political positions
.90***
Purchase
Intention
can indeed be used strategically to help generate atten-
tion and potentially differentiate brands.
However, the weakening of SBC in the case of mis-
alignment between brand political position and indivi-
dual political affiliation represents an important risk for
brands. First, this points to the precariousness of SBC.
This has not been a focus of previous SBC research, and
is an important extension of this literature. Most well-
established beliefs, such as quality and value, are resis-
tant to change, requiring either multiple instances of
moderately or extremely incongruent information
(Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989), suggesting they act
as a stereotype (e.g., Weber and Crocker 1983). For
example, customers with strong and well-established
brand relationships are susceptible to brand remedies
such as compensation and apologies to counteract dis-
satisfying interactions and maintain their relationships
(Grégoire, Tripp, and Legoux 2009), even if they blame
the brand (Klein and Dawar 2004).
In contrast, SBC, even when very well-established,
appears to be highly sensitive to even one instance of
conflicting information, at least one in which poten-
tially highly negative emotions are generated. This is
likely due to the self-image influence and the impor-
tance of individuals protecting these images. In this
manner, SBC presents an important contrast to other
well-established beliefs that are more amenable to hits
of negative information. In this manner, our findings
also extend the research on norm violations. Norm
violations can negatively influence brand evaluations

(Aggarwal 2004) depending on the nature of the rela-
tionship and violation. Similarly, political misalign-
ment is apparently considered a strong enough
violation to weaken SBC.
The managerial implications of this research are clear
and powerful. Political positions have such strong emo-
tional responses that brand politicization occurs for
even extremely familiar brands after only one associa-
tion with a position. This can enhance SBC, and con-
sequently brand attitude and purchase intention.
However, if there is a misalignment versus an align-
ment between the brand’s political position and the
individual’s political affiliation, then marketers must
realize the risks involved. An example of this might
be a case where a brand like Target issues a statement
asking consumers not to bring firearms into its stores,
(a generally liberal-leaning political stance) that is then
noticed by conservatives with deep convictions regard-
ing perceived violations of the second amendment.
Importantly, an alignment between the brand’s poli-
tical statement and the individual’s political affiliation
did not strengthen SBC significantly compared with
when the brand was not linked with a political posi-
tion. Moreover, a misalignment weakened SBC even
after just one instance. The latter is a significant risk,
as SBC takes time to develop and can be a powerful
source of competitive advantage. Further, weakening
SBC directly led to less positive brand attitude and
reduced purchase intention.
This suggests managers should tread carefully when
linking brands with political positions. Our results sug-
gest there is limited upside potential of this approach
and a more significant downside risk. The potential
differentiation and attention-generating benefits of
the strategy may be associated with significant negative
implications such as inhibiting a beneficial consumer-
brand relationship and developing a potent SBC, as
well as declining sales and/or profitability.
This clearly indicates linking brands with political
positions may not in fact represent a natural and
straightforward extension of cause-related marketing.
For example, although not everyone is going to feel a
stronger connection with a brand when it is linked
with the pink ribbon representing breast cancer
research, it is unlikely that anyone would be in favor
of cancer or opposed to research. Therefore, while link-
ing a brand with the pink ribbon may not motivate
purchase, it is also unlikely to alienate potential buyers
and SBC should not be at risk. In contrast to causes,
Spring 2017 135
political positions have opposing camps, and this leads
to the weakening of SBC in the misalignment context.
Moreover, another difference with cause-related mar-
keting may be the implications as links are formed
with increasing numbers of brands. There are now so
many brands and sports organizations that are linked
with the pink ribbon that is has become ubiquitous,
making it difficult for any brand to see significant posi-
tive benefits in terms of SBC, awareness, or differentia-
tion. However, opposing this situation, political
positions are clearly emotionally resonant, putting
SBC in play regardless of how many other brands are
linked with them.
There were several limitations, which point to other
avenues of future research. First, in each study, we
examined one political position. However, some
brands are already known for taking multiple positions.
For example, Starbucks has publically supported many
liberal candidates and issues, and banned guns from its
retail outlets in open-carry states. Once a brand moves
in one political direction, it is unknown if there are any
threshold effects above which people who affiliate with
the opposite party may stop consumption completely
or actively spread negative word-of-mouth. Second, we
assumed that it would be equally authentic for each
brand to be linked with each political position.
However, recent research has pointed to the impor-
tance of brand authenticity, and some links between
certain brands and political positions may be consid-
ered less authentic given existing brand beliefs. For
example, Avon has been associated with women’s
beauty products and women’s health issues for so
long that any link with any women’s health concern
would likely be considered highly authentic. However,
if Under Armour decided to link its interlocking U and
A symbol with the pink ribbon without a tradition of
targeting women or being associated with health issues
of any kind, then it may be considered much less
authentic. This may lead to cynicism, counter-arguing,
and negative feedback effects. Future work should
examine this potentially critical moderator.
Third, we did not examine profitability outcomes of
brand political positions. For example, regardless of
SBC implications, perhaps a brand that is linked with
a “hot” political position will see an immediate sales
increase from people with the same political affiliation.
Future research should use sales data and analyze cor-
relations with the timing of brand political announce-
ments. Fourth, although we measured religiosity when
136 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
it was relevant to the political issue and did not find
any effects, it is possible that our samples were insuffi-
ciently heterogeneous in terms of religious beliefs.
Future research should use more religiously diverse
samples to better understand the potential effects of
religion on the implications of brands linking with
political positions. Finally, we limited respondents to
a binary two-party choice, but as previously noted
there is a trend toward increasing political indepen-
dence and thus decreasing unidimensionality in party
beliefs. Future work should better understand the
effects of these many gray areas in political affiliation
on the impact of brands linking with political posi-
tions. For example, if a brand linked with same-sex
marriage, then would a fiscally-conservative yet
socially-liberal Republican consider it an alignment, a
misalignment, or not relevant at all?
NOTE
1. All t-values with degrees of freedom to the hundredth
place are for circumstances where the respective variances
were not equal via Levene’s test.
REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3), 347–356.
—— (1999), “The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression
in Persuasion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (1), 45–
57.
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders (2005), “Is
Polarization a Myth?,” Journal of Politics, 70 (2), 542–555.
Aggarwal, Pankaj (2004), “The Effects of Brand Relationship
Norms on Consumer Attitudes and Behavior,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 31 (1), 87–101.
——-, and Ann L. McGill (2012), “When Brands Seem
Human, Do Humans Act Like Brands? Automatic
Behavioral Priming Effects of Brand
Anthropomorphism,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39
(2), 307–323.
Andrews, Michelle, Xueming Luo, Zheng Fang, and Jaakko
Aspara (2014), “Cause Marketing Effectiveness and the
Moderating Role of Price Discounts,” Journal of
Marketing, 78 (6), 120–142.
Avlon, John (2013), Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe Is
Hijacking America, New York: Beast Books.
Bar-Tal, Daniel, (2001), Shared Beliefs in a Society: Social
Psychological Analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Batra, Rajeev, Aaron Ahuvia, and Richard P. Bagozzi (2012),
“Brand Love,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (2), 1–16.
Belk, Russell E. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2): 139–168.
Berinsky, Adam J., Gregory A. Huber, and Gabriel S. Lenz
(2012), “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for
Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical
Turk,” Political Analysis, 20 (3), 351–368.
Berry, Leonard L., and A. Parasuraman (1991), Marketing
Services: Competing Through Quality, New York: Free Press.
Biehal, Gabriel J., and Daniel A. Sheinin, (2007), “The
Influence of Corporate Messages on the Product
Portfolio,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (2), 12–25.
Briggs, Elten, Zhiyong Yang, Tracy R. Harmon-Kizer, and
Todd J. Arnold, (2016), “How Do Differing Community
Engagement Strategies Affect Consumer Responses to a
Retailer?,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 24 (1),
109–127.
Brown, Tom J., and Peter A. Dacin (1997), “The Company
and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer
Product Responses,” Journal of Marketing, 61 (1), 68–84.
Carney, Dana R., John T. Jost, Samuel D. Gosling, and Jeff
Potter (2008), “The Secret Lives of Liberals and
Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles,
and the Things They Leave Behind,” Political
Psychology, 29 (6), 807–840.
Chernev, Alexander, Ryan Hamilton, and David Gal (2011),
“Competing for Consumer Identity: Limits to Self-
Expression and the Perils of Lifestyle Branding,” Journal
of Marketing, 75 (3), 66–82.
Clark, Margaret S. and Judson Mills (1993), “The Difference
Between Communal and Exchange Relationships: What
It Is and Is Not,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
19 (6), 684–691.
Dawar, Niraj, and Madan M. Pillutla (2000), “Impact of
Product-Harm Crises on Brand Equity: The Moderating
Role of Consumer Expectations,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 37 (2), 215–226.
Desilver, Drew (2014), “In Late Spurt of Activity, Congress
Avoids ‘Least Productive’ Title,” Pew Research Center,
December 29 (available at http://www.pewresearch.org/
fact-tank/2014/12/29/in-late-spurt-of-activity-congress-
avoids-least-productive-title/)
Escalas, Jennifer E. (2004), “Narrative Processing: Building
Consumer Connections to Brands,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 14 (1), 168–179.
——, and James R. Bettman (2003), “You Are What They Eat:
The Influence of Reference Groups on Consumers’
Connections to Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psychology,
13 (3), 339–348.
——, and —— (2005), “Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and
Brand Meaning,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3),
378–389.
Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands:
Developing Relationship Theory on Consumer
Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 343–373.
Goldhill, Olivia (2014), “How Gay Marriage Became a
Marketing Tool,” The Telegraph, April 8 (available at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retai
landconsumer/10750021/How-gay-marriage-became-a-
marketing-tool.html).
Grégoire, Yany, Thomas M. Tripp, and Renaud Legoux,
(2009), “When Customer Love Turns into Lasting Hate:
The Effects of Relationship Strength and Time on

Customer Revenge and Avoidance,” Journal of Marketing,
73 (6), 18–32.
Haider-Markel, Donald P., and Mark R. Joslyn (2013),
“Politicizing Biology: Social Movements, Parties, and
the Case of Homosexuality,” Social Science Journal, 50
(4), 603–615.
Hayes, Andrew F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation,
and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based
Approach, New York: Guilford Press.
He, Yi, Qimei Chen, and Dana L. Alden (2015), “Time Will
Tell: Managing Post-purchase Changes in Brand
Attitude,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44
(6), 791–805.
Heider, Fritz (1946), “Attitudes and Cognitive Organization,”
Journal of Psychology, 21 (1), 107–112.
Horton, John J., David G. Rand, and Richard J. Zeckhauser
(2011), “The Online Laboratory: Conducting
Experiments in a Real Labor Market,” Experimental
Economics, 14 (3), 399–425.
James, William (1890), The Principles of Psychology, New York:
Holt.
Jost, John T. (2006), “The End of the End of Ideology,”
American Psychologist, 61 (7), 651–670.
——-, Federico, Christopher M., and Napier, Jaime L. (2009),
“Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective
Affinities,” Annual Review of Psychology, 60 (1), 307–337.
Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (1979), “Prospect
Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,”
Econometrica, 47 (2), 263–291.
Kemp, Elyria, Ravi Jillapalli, and Enrique Becerra (2014),
“Healthcare Branding: Developing Emotionally Based
Consumer Brand Relationships,” Journal of Services
Marketing, 28 (2), 126–137.
Kent, Robert J., and Kent G. Allen (1994), “Competitive
Interference Effects in Consumer Memory,” Journal of
Marketing, 58 (3), 97–105.
Kerr, Anthony H., and Neel Das (2013), “Thinking About Fit
and Donation Format in Cause Marketing: The Effects of
Need for Cognition,” Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 21 (1), 103–112.
Klein, Jill, and Niraj Dawar (2004), “Corporate Social
Responsibility and Consumers’ Attributions and Brand
Evaluations in a Product-harm Crisis,” International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 21 (3), 203–217.
Kristof, Nicholas (2016), “Sanders, Clinton and er, President
Trump,” New York Times, June 9 (available at http://
www.nytimes.com/2016/06/09/opinion/sanders-clin
ton-and-er-president-trump.html?_r=0).
Krugman, Paul (2016), “Paul Krugman: Change Doesn’t
Happen Through Extremist Like Bernie Sanders and
Ted Cruz,” Dallas Morning News, January 22 (available
at http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/
2016/01/22/paul-krugman-change-doesnt-happen-
through-extremists-like-bernie-sanders-and-ted-cruz).
Lerner, Barron H. (2010), “Pink Ribbon Fatigue,” New York
Times, October 11 (available at http://well.blogs.
nytimes.com/2010/10/11/pink-ribbon-fatigue/).
Levendusky, Matthew S., and Jeremy C. Pope (2011), “Red
States Vs. Blue States Going Beyond the Mean,”” Public
Opinion Quarterly, 75 (2), 227–248.
Spring 2017 137
Malar, Lucia, Harley Krohmer, Wayne D. Hoyer, and Bettina
Nyffenegger (2011), “Emotional Brand Attachment and
Brand Personality: The Relative Importance of the Actual
and Ideal Self,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (4), 35–52.
Mandler, Jean M. (1984), Stories, Scripts, and Scenes: Aspects of
Schema Theory, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
McAdams, Dan P., Kathrin J. Hanek and Joseph G. Dadabo
(2013), “Themes of Self-Regulation and Self-Exploration
in the Life: Stories of Religious American Conservatives
and Liberals,” Political Psychology, 34 (2), 310–319.
McCracken, Grant (1989), “Who Is the Celebrity Endorser?
Cultural Foundations of the Endorsement Process,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (3), 310–321.
Meyers-Levy, Joan, and Alice M. Tybout (1989), “Schema
Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 16 (1), 39–54.
Mitchell, Amy, and Jesse Holcomb (2015), “State of the News
Media 2015,” Pew Research Center Journalism and Media,
April 29 (available at http://www.journalism.org/2016/
06/15/state-of-the-news-media-2016/).
Ortiz, Mandy H., Kristy E. Reynolds, and George R. Franke
(2013), “Measuring Consumer Devotion: Antecedents
and Consequences of Passionate Consumer Behavior,”
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 21 (1), 7–30.
Osgood, Charles E., and Percy H. Tannenbaum (1955), “The
Principle of Congruity in the Prediction of Attitude
Change,” Psychological Review, 62 (1), 42–55.
Paharia, Neeru, Anat Keinan, Jill Avery, and Juliet B. Schor,
(2011), “The Underdog Effect: The Marketing of
Disadvantage and Determination Through Brand
Biography,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (5), 775–
790.
Park, C. Whan, Deborah J. MacInnis, Joseph Priester, Andreas
B. Eisingerich, and Dawn Iacobucci (2010), “Brand
Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual
and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand
Equity Drivers,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (6), 1–17.
Roehm, Michelle R., and Michael K. Brady (2007),
“Consumer Responses to Performance Failures by
High-Equity Brands,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34
(4), 537–545.
Rumelhart, David E. (1980), “Schemata: The Building Blocks
of Cognition,” in Theoretical Issues in Reading
Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology,
Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence, and Education, Rand J.
Spiro, Bertram C. Bruce, and William F. Brewer, eds.,
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 33–57.
Saad, Lydia (2012), “Conservatives Remain the Largest
Ideological Group in the U.S.,” Gallup, January 12 (avail-
able at http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conserva
tives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx).
—— (2015), “U.S. Liberals at Record 24%, but Still Trail
Conservatives,” Gallup, January 9 (available at http://
www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-con
servatives.aspx).
Sago, Renata, Ben Markus, and Jude Joffe-Block (2016), “Sick
of Political Parties, Unaffiliated Voters Are Changing
Politics,” WGBH Boston’s Local NPR, February 28 (avail-
able at http://www.npr.org/2016/02/28/467961962/
138 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
sick-of-political-parties-unaffiliated-voters-are-changing-
politics).
Sen, Sankar, and C.B. Bhattacharya (2001), “Does Doing
Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer
Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 38 (2), 225–243.
Shah, Dhavan V., Douglas M. McLeod, Eunkyung Kim, Sun
Young Lee, Melissa R. Gotlieb, Shirley S. Ho, and Hilde
Breivik (2007), “Political Consumerism: How
Communication and Consumption Orientations Drive
‘Lifestyle Politics,’” The ANNALS of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 611 (1), 217–235.
Sheth, Jagdeth N., and Atul Parvatiyar (1995), “Relationship
Marketing in Consumer Markets: Antecedents and
Consequences,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 23 (4), 255–271.
Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982), “Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior:
A Critical Review,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (3),
287–299.
——, Dong-Jin Lee, J.S. Johar and John Tidwell (2008), “Effect
of Self-congruity with Sponsorship on Brand Loyalty,”
Journal of Business Research, 61 (10), 1091–1097.
Smith, Amy K., Ruth N. Bolton and Janet Wagner (1999), “A
Model of Customer Satisfaction with Service Encounters
Involving Failure and Recovery,” Journal of Marketing
Research36 (3), 356–372.
Smith, Sam (1995), Second Coming: The Strange Odyssey of
Michael Jordan, New York: HarperCollins.
Swaminathan, Vanitha, Karen L. Page, and Zeynep Gurhan-
Canli (2007), “‘My’ Brand or ‘Our’ Brand: The Effects of
Brand Relationship Dimensions and Self-Construal on
Brand Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34
(2), 248–259.
Taylor, Shelley E., and Jennifer Crocker (1981), “Schematic
Bases of Social Information Processing,” in Social
Cognition: The Ontario Symposium on Personality and
Social Psychology, Edward T. Higgins, C. Peter Herman,
& Mark P. Zanna, eds., 89–134.
Underwood, Robert L. (2003), “The Communicative Power of
Product Packaging: Creating Brand Identity via Lived
and Mediated Experience,” Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice, 11 (1), 62–76.
Varadarajan, P. Rajan, and Anil Menon (1988), “Cause-
Related Marketing: A Coalignment of Marketing
Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy,” Journal of
Marketing, 52 (3), 58–74.
Vivek, Shri D., Sharon E. Beatty, Vivek Dalela, and Robert M.
Morgan (2014), “A Generalized Multidimensional Scale
for Measuring Customer Engagement,” Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 22 (4), 401–420.
Wakslak, Cheryl J., John T. Jost, Tom R. Tyler, and Emmeline
S. Chen (2007), “Moral Outrage Mediates the
Dampening Effect of System Justification on Support
for Redistributive Social Policies,” Psychological Science,
18 (3), 267–274.
Walster, Elaine, Ellen Berscheid and William G. Walster
(1973), “New Directions in Equity Research,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 25 (2), 151–176.
Weber, Renee, and Jennifer Crocker (1983), “Cognitive
Processes in the Revision of Stereotypic Beliefs,” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (5), 961–977.
Woodside, Arch G. (2004), “Advancing Means–End Chains by
Incorporating Heider’s Balance Theory and Fournier’s
Consumer–Brand Relationship Typology,” Psychology
and Marketing, 21 (4), 279–294.
——, and Jean-Charles Chebat (2001), “Updating Heider’s
Balance Theory in Consumer Behavior: A Jewish
Couple Buys a German Car and Additional Buying–
Consuming Transformation Stories,” Psychology and
Marketing, 18 (5), 475–495.
 Spring 2017 139

APPENDIX 1 Athletes for Marriage Equality cause. The cause, which

was announced yesterday, calls on both its customers and
state legislators to come together and “fully support les-
Demographic Characteristics of the Samples
bian/gay/transsexual/bisexual rights in all aspects of life
from full marriage quality to equal spousal benefits.” Nike
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 is only planning guerilla marketing tactics supporting the
cause for now, but doesn’t rule out making the cause a
Gender Male 63% 62% 49%
Female 37% 38% 51%
more significant part of its traditional, digital, and social
Race White 40% 77% 86% media communications in the future.
Asian 50% 9% 4%
African American 5% 5% 3%
Hispanic 3% 7% 7% Study 2 Stimuli
Multi-racial 2% 2% 0%
Age 18 - 25 20% 35% 21% Conservative Condition
26 - 34 46% 40% 39%
35 - 54 23% 19% 27% . . .. urging its customers to oppose President Obama’s
55+ 11% 6% 13% Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare). The
Income < $20,000 39% 21% 21% cause, which was announced yesterday, calls on both its
$20,000 - $50,000 30% 40% 50% customers and legislators to come together and oppose
$50,000 - $75,000 17% 19% 15% the “creation of new taxes to pay for the act, penalty fee
> $75,000 14% 20% 14% on individuals who choose not to buy health insurance,
Political affiliation Democrat 38% 36% 43%
and higher insurance premiums that will be needed to
Republican 21% 31% 24%
pay for everyone’s health care.” . . ...
Independent 41% 33% 33%

Liberal Condition

. . .. urging its customers to support President Obama’s

APPENDIX 2
Study 1 Stimuli
Conservative Condition
Could a societal message with a pair of sneakers have any
sway in the United States? Nike CEO Mark Parker is bet-
ting on it, urging its customers to join the company’s
Athletes for Traditional Family Values cause. The cause,
which was announced yesterday, calls on both its custo-
mers and state legislators to come together and “fully
support the legal definition of marriage as between one
man and one woman in all aspects of life.” Nike is only
planning guerilla marketing tactics supporting the cause
for now, but doesn’t rule out making the cause a more
significant part of its traditional, digital, and social media
communications in the future.
Liberal Condition
Could a societal message with a pair of sneakers have any
sway in the United States? Nike CEO Mark Parker is bet-
ting on it, urging its customers to join the company’s
Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare). The
cause, which was announced yesterday, calls on both
its customers and legislators to come together and sup-
port the “elimination of lifetime payment caps, 50
percent tax credit for small businesses to help cover
their employees’ health care premium costs, more
affordable prescription drugs, and lower heath care pre-
miums for millions of middle-class families.” . . ..
Study 3 Stimuli
Both conditions begin with “Could a political message
have any sway in the United States if it’s associated
with a sandwich shop? Subway CEO Fred DeLuca is
betting on it,”
Liberal Condition
. . .. urging Subway customers to support gun control, and
oppose an individual’s right to keep and bear automatic,
semi-automatic, and other military-grade weapons.
DeLuca completely opposes the second amendment of
140 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
the U.S. Constitution, which says: “A well-regulated mili-
tia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right
of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.” He believes it applies only to every U.S. citizen
who is in the military. Subway is calling on its customers to
vote for legislators who favor the cause, and oppose the
National Rifle Association (NRA). DeLuca notes “Subway
opposes the individual’s right to bear arms in public spaces
and requests that customers with firearms not enter our
stores in states that have open carry laws.”
Conservative Condition
. . .. urging Subway customers to oppose gun control
and support an individual’s right to keep and bear
arms, including automatic, semi-automatic, and other
military-grade weapons. DeLuca completely supports
the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution,
which is: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to
the security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” He believes
it applies to every U.S. citizen. Subway is calling on its
customers to vote for legislators who favor the cause,
and back the National Rifle Association (NRA). DeLuca
notes “Subway supports the individual’s right to bear
arms in publics spaces and welcomes customers with
firearms in our stores in states that have open carry
laws.”
. . .. = same wording as previous description up to or
after this point.