CONCEPTUALIZING AND MEASURING CONSUMER ACTIVISM FROM AN ANTI- BRAND, GOAL-ORIENTED BEHAVIORAL PERSPECTIVE: A PSYCHOMETRIC SCALE DEVELOPMENT By Iago Santos Muraro A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Information and Media – Doctor of Philosophy 2023 ABSTRACT Corporations sometimes do things not always in the best interest of consumers, society, and the environment. In response, consumers have increasingly come together to hold corporations accountable for their unethical practices (brand transgressions) through a multitude of activist-like behaviors. When companies transgress, consumers may turn to their shopping bags and social media accounts, among other forms of online and offline action, to stand against unethical corporate practices, commonly called consumer activism. The study of personal goals as a motivational driver has gained growing attention among consumer activism scholars. However, knowledge advancement is hindered by the need for a reliable and valid scale that can measure consumer activists’ personally motivated goals. Extant measures have some critical limitations. First, they were developed in the context of boycotting only, which limits their application to other activist-like behaviors. Second, they conflated different motivational constructs, creating problems of content and construct validity. Third, extant measures were proposed without systematically investigating construct breadth and dimensionality. This is a crucial step in scale development because it increases researchers’ confidence that relevant personal goals have been adequately identified and translated into a measurement protocol. This dissertation addresses these limitations by proposing a measurement scale of consumer activism personal goals that observes best practices in scale development in the social sciences. This process starts with an in-depth, interdisciplinary literature review on consumer activism that culminates with conceptualizing consumer activism as a goal-oriented behavior directed against a company concerning an issue of personal relevance. In addition, a typological model of consumer activism is proposed – the 6 Ps of Consumer Activism. Subsequently, the scale is developed through a multi-study design. Study 1 aims to 1) investigate the theoretical breadth of the construct and its dimensions and 2) generate an initial pool of measurement items. This is accomplished through in-depth interviews with consumer activists, a panel discussion with experts, and cognitive interviews with consumer activists. Study 2 focuses on assessing the latent structure of the measurement scale via EFA. Finally, Study 3 provides additional statistical support concerning the final measurement protocol via CFA and measurement validity assessment. As a result, a 20-item measurement scale is proposed to indicate five personally motivated goals of consumer activists – the Consumer Activism Motivation Scale (CAMS). The CAMS can help researchers and practitioners in predicting various behavioral and perceptual outcomes in the context of consumer activism. Copyright by IAGO SANTOS MURARO 2023 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I would like to acknowledge my family and friends for their unconditional love and support that helped me to stay focused in pursuing my dream. Special thanks go to my parents, Frederico and Rosane, and my husband, Daniel. Also, I would like to thank my dog, Star, for her comforting presence by my office desk throughout this journey. This dissertation would not be possible without the support and generosity I continuously received from the faculty, staff, and student bodies of the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University. It is impossible to name every person I crossed paths with in classrooms, meetings, and social gatherings that contributed to my personal growth in the past five years. I wanted to extend my most sincere gratitude to all of our community. Also, I would like to acknowledge the research participants who voluntarily and anonymously contributed to this dissertation during data collection. To all my class instructors from this and past educational institutions, thank you for sharing your knowledge with me and helping me discover so many wonderful things, from statistical analysis to communication theories, to consumer psychology principles, to the pervasive systems of oppression that invisibly operate in our society. To my fellow doctoral students in the information and media program, thank you for all the camaraderie and the multiple virtual gatherings that kept us all going through the worst phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. I also feel incredibly lucky to be part of a student community that is always ready to help each other during challenging moments. During this dissertation, some of you were especially important to me for sharing knowledge and encouraging me to keep making progress. My special thanks go to Linda White, Megan Knittel, and Ava Francesca Battocchio. You are lovely, and the world needs more people like you. v To my students in media planning, digital analytics, international advertising, and the study abroad program in Italy, thank you for allowing me to do one of the things I love most: teaching. Also, I want to mention our incredible university staff, which keeps our college processes running smoothly, reminds us of our many academic deadlines, and takes care of our paperwork and academic appointments. Your work allowed me to have a fantastic experience at Michigan State University. Thank you. Next, I wanted to thank Dr. Teresa Mastin and Dr. Anastasia Kononova. Teresa, I was always amazed by your empathy with the students. Thank you for opening so many doors for me. Anastasia, thank you for being my first-year academic supervisor and becoming a friend. In addition, I wanted to express my deepest gratitude to my dissertation committee, without whom this dissertation would not have come to fruition: Dr. Chuqing Dong, you were the latest to join my committee. Nonetheless, you left an indelible mark on my work. Thank you for all the feedback on my dissertation research planning and conceptualization of consumer activism and for helping me more clearly see my future research agenda stemming from this dissertation. I cannot wait for our future joint research projects to come to life. Dr. Kjerstin Thorson, you helped me to transform my curiosity about consumer activism into an object of scientific research. You gave me the honor to be your research assistant, and I learned so much from you. I am fortunate to have you as a mentor and research co-author. Your guidance was fundamental in helping me to move up on the ladder of abstraction and see consumer activism from a social movement perspective. Also, thank you for telling me when it was time to stop reviewing the literature! vi Dr. Patricia Huddleston, in your brand management class, I conceptualized my first consumer activism research paper, which is now in press. You were the first to welcome me to Michigan State University when I was a prospective student, and since then, our paths have crossed so many times in meetings, classrooms, research, and now, my dissertation defense. Thank you for helping me to infuse the brand management perspective into my dissertation, which was invaluable in demonstrating the business implications of my work. Dr. Serena Miller, you asked the tough questions with kindness. In my first year, you helped me to fathom my dissertation topic. During my dissertation, you gave me much-needed feedback, especially regarding my research methods. You were always there when I needed to borrow your expertise in scale development – even when that meant meeting two days after Christmas to talk about some research results. Above all, thank you for your generosity. That showed me how much you cared about me and believed in my research. Dr. Nora Rifon, words are not enough to thank you. We worked together and published together. With your expertise in consumer psychology and research methods, you helped me to weave together the different contributions of my committee into a cohesive research proposal and, now, a final dissertation. For the past three years, you have been a constant presence on my Zoom. During the COVID-19 lockdown, for weeks, sometimes, you were the only person I would interact with besides my closest family. You brought me joy and made me laugh when I was sad. You helped me to believe in myself when my impostor syndrome or anxiety kicked in. We talked about science. We talked about life and the afterlife. You were the most difficult goodbye I had to say when I moved to Switzerland. You will forever have a special place in my heart, and I will never forget you. This dissertation research received funding from the Michigan State University Graduate vii School Dissertation Completion Fellowship and the Rifon Family Endowment for Research in Ethical Marketing and Advertising Practice, which was awarded to the dissertation author by the Advertising and Public Relations Department of the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... xi LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xiii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 What Is Consumer Activism, and Why Should We Care About It? ........................................... 2 Why Does Understanding Consumer Activism Motivations Matter? ........................................ 4 Why Is It Relevant to Develop a Scale to Measure Motives (Goals) to Engage in Consumer Activism? .................................................................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER TWO: CONSUMER ACTIVISM................................................................................ 8 From Workers’ Movement and Social Class Conflicts to Consumer Power in The Neoliberal Economy ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Historical Note About Consumer Activism .............................................................................. 10 The Emergence of Consumer Activism as a Socially Transformative Force ........................... 11 Social Fragmentation and Social Media: From Collective to Individualized Collective Actions ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Stitching it all Together: The Logic of Connective Action ...................................................... 17 Conceptually Defining Consumer Activism ............................................................................. 20 A Brief Note on Consumer Activism Criticism as a Form for Political Participation ............. 29 CHAPTER THREE: HUMAN MOTIVATION........................................................................... 32 Means-End Chain (MEC) ......................................................................................................... 33 Motivational Systems Theory (MST) ....................................................................................... 34 Personal Goals as a Motivational Component in Consumer Activism ..................................... 35 CHAPTER FOUR: CONSUMER ACTIVISM MOTIVATIONAL GOALS AND NOMOLOGICAL NETWORK .................................................................................................... 37 Pre-Identified Consumer Activism Personally Motivating Goals ............................................ 37 Extant Operationalizations Consumer Activism Personally Motivating Goals ........................ 49 Nomological Model of Consumer Activism Motivations ........................................................ 52 CHAPTER FIVE: SCALE DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGICAL OVERVIEW ................ 56 CHAPTER SIX: STUDY 1 – QUALITATIVE INVESTIGATION OF CONCEPTUAL BREADTH AND DIMENSIONALITY AND INITIAL GENERATION OF MEASUREMENT ITEMS........................................................................................................................................... 59 Phase 1: Consumer Activists' In-Depth Interviews .................................................................. 60 Phase 2: Panel of Experts .......................................................................................................... 91 Phase 3: Cognitive Interviews .................................................................................................. 93 CHAPTER SEVEN: STUDY 2 – EXPLORATORY QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND SCALE RELIABILITY .............................................................................................................. 100 Methods................................................................................................................................... 101 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 110 ix Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 120 CHAPTER EIGHT: STUDY 3 – CONFIRMATORY QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND SCALE VALIDITY .................................................................................................................... 129 Methods................................................................................................................................... 129 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 148 Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 172 CHAPTER NINE: GENERAL DISCUSSION .......................................................................... 177 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 184 APPENDIX A: SEMI-STRUCTRED, IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT FORM ......................................................................................................................................... 202 APPENDIX B: SEMI-STRUCTURED, IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW GUIDE ............................. 206 APPENDIX C: COGNITIVE INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT FORM ........................ 211 APPENDIX D: COGNITIVE INTERVIEW GUIDE ................................................................ 215 APPENDIX E: STUDY 2 ONLINE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................... 217 x LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Pre-Identified Conceptual Dimensions of Consumer Activism Motivational Goals…..38 Table 2. Pre-Identified Consumer Activism Behaviors……………………………………….....62 Table 3. Participants’ Demographics and Activism Characteristics……………………...……...65 Table 4. Final List of Measurement Items…………………………………………………….....98 Table 5. Sample Demographics………………………………………………………………...108 Table 6. Sample Proportion of Activist-Like Behaviors……………………………………….109 Table 7. Sample Proportion of Activist-Like Behavior Frequency……………………...……..110 Table 8. Initial Exploratory Factor Analysis Results…………………………………………...113 Table 9. Final Exploratory Factor Analysis Results of the Consumer Activism Motivation Scale (CAMS)………………………………………………………………………………………...117 Table 10. Factor Correlations from Final Exploratory Factor Analysis………………………..120 Table 11. Sample Demographics……………………………………………………………….140 Table 12. Sample Proportion of Activist-Like Behaviors……………………………………...141 Table 13. Sample Proportion of Activist-Like Behavior Frequency…………………………...142 Table 14. Sample Proportion of Consumer Activism Issues…………………………………...143 Table 15. Descriptive Statistics of Measurement Items………………………………………..145 Table 16. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results of the Consumer Activism Motivation Scale (CAMS)………………………………………………………………………………………...149 Table 17. CFA Model Factor Intercorrelations, Reliability Statistics, and Average Variance Extracted………………………………………………………………………………………..150 Table 18. Measurement Models Based on Classical Test Theory……………………………...152 Table 19. Between-Group Measurement Invariance Model Assessment………………………153 Table 20. Fornell-Larcker Test and HTMT Ratio Test Results………………………………...155 Table 21. Nomological Validity Assessment via SEM Model…………………………………156 xi Table 22. Predictive Validity Assessment via Logistic Regression Models for Lower vs. Higher Commitment Activist Behavior Groups………………………………………………………..159 Table 23. Predictive Validity Assessment via Logistic Regression Models for Lower Commitment Behavior………………………………………………………………………….161 Table 24. Predictive Validity Assessment via Logistic Regression Models for Higher Commitment Behavior………………………………………………………………………….163 Table 25. OLS Regression Models Predicting Consumer Activism Personal Goals by Activists’ Demographic Characteristics…………………………………………………………………...171 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The 6 Ps of Consumer Activism……………………………………………………….22 Figure 2. Correlation Matrix …………………………………………………………………...111 Figure 3. Screeplot of Eigenvalues with Parallel Analysis …………………………………….112 Figure 4. Mean Scores of Brand Hate, Collective Efficacy, and Involvement Across Issues.…166 Figure 5. Mean Scores of Consumer Activism Motivations Across Issues ……………………167 Figure 6. Mean Scores of Consumer Activism Motivations Across Issues with 95% Confidence Intervals……………………………………………………...………………………………….168 Figure 7. Mean Scores of Brand Punishment, Business Reformation, and Involvement Across Issues……………………………………………………………………………………………169 xiii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Corporations sometimes do things not always in the best interest of consumers, society, and the world (Heldman, 2017). In response, consumers have increasingly come together to hold corporations accountable for their unethical practices, which are referred to as corporate transgressions and will be formally conceptualized below. From Nestle’s aggressive marketing of infant formula in underdeveloped countries (Heldman, 2017), to Facebook’s lenience toward the spread of hate speech and fake news (Hsu & Lutz, 2020), to corporate head-in-sand response toward the war in Ukraine (Ross Sorkin & Giang, 2022), consumers have risen and used their shopping bags and social media accounts, among other forms of action, to stand against business unethical practices. Consumer activism has moved from the fringes of political participation to become a mainstream behavior that one in three U.S. Americans has engaged in the past year (Center For Climate Change Communication, 2021). According to some estimates, consumer activism is the second most common form of political participation, only behind voting (Keeter et al., 2002). From preventing an irreversible climate disaster (Lenton et al., 2019) to standing up against human rights violations (Micheletti, 2003), consumer activism’s role in the betterment of society cannot be ignored, nonetheless. Still, it is not unusual for consumer activism campaigns to fail in changing corporate practices, and consequences to companies are sometimes limited to corporate reputation damages (Heldman, 2017). This has been linked to a reliance on feel-good, low-threshold forms of activism, such as social media posting and sharing, that has overshadowed more effortful behaviors, such as protests and boycotts, as exemplified by the UNICEF’s “Likes Don’t Save Lives” campaign (Kristofferson et al., 2014). 1 This dissertation investigates the underlying motivations that energize consumers to move from a state of inertia or indifference to one of action in response to corporate transgressions. Research focused on understanding the multifaceted motivations of consumer activism participation can 1) allow advocacy groups and engaged consumers to design better campaigns that are more likely to go beyond reputational damage and make a real difference in the world by changing business practices and 2) inform CSR and corporate advocacy communication strategies. As much as the literature has called for more research on this topic (Makarem & Jae, 2016), the lack of a comprehensive typology [although see Muraro and Rifon (in press)] and the advance of valid and reliable measurement operationalizations on consumer activism motivations has hindered knowledge development in this domain. Therefore, this dissertation research aims to fill this gap by conceptualizing consumer activism as a goal- oriented behavior and proposing a psychometric measurement scale of consumer activists' goals as a motivational drive. What Is Consumer Activism, and Why Should We Care About It? From a corporate perspective, target corporations may experience adverse reputational and financial outcomes due to consumer activism (Klein et al., 2004; Rauschnabel et al., 2016; Villagra et al., 2021). SeaWorld, for instance, has faced decisive consumer anti-brand actions following the release of the documentary Blackfish in 2013. The movie tells the story of the suffering of killer whales living in water tanks for the amusement of SeaWorld visitors. One year after the documentary release, the company reported a 5.6 percent park attendance decline, a ten- dollar decrease in stock prices, and a 50 percent loss in revenue. The SeaWorld case is not in isolation. Other companies have also faced strong opposition from consumers. Examples abound, including Nike and the sweatshop supply chain crisis in the 1990s (Locke, 2003; Stolle et al., 2 2005), the British Petroleum (BP) oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 (Heldman, 2017), and, more recently, Facebook (Meta) due to its lethargic corporate response to the dissemination of hate speech and misinformation on its platform (The New York Times 2020; Villagra, Monfort, and Méndez-Suárez 2021). From a political science viewpoint, consumer activism has entailed a reconceptualization of political participation. In the 1970s, traditional forms of political engagement started to dim, as indicated by dwindling voter turnout numbers and shrinking political rallies attendance (Copeland, 2014b; Stolle et al., 2005). In addition, governments’ inability and, sometimes, unwillingness to handle new, complex social problems, such as environmental degradation, exposed governability and popular representation challenges that sparked growing skepticism toward public institutions’ legitimacy (Micheletti, 2003). Consumer activism is partially a response to that, whereby citizens started to engage in individual responsibility-taking behaviors concerning social, political, and environmental problems (issues) and placed their demands directly onto corporations instead of government representatives. In this context, citizens realize that consumption is more than a mere financial transaction. Instead, it has become a process of political power transfer from consumers to corporations. In parallel, corporate agents understand that to sustain their economic dominance, they cannot simply focus on expanding market share through the trading of goods and services but on increasing their share of influence on public decisions, i.e., to govern (Micheletti & Stolle, 2007). From this perspective, as de Moor (2017) argued, consumer activism can be illustrated by the mantra “be the change you want to see in the world.” The lack of official numbers about consumer activism participation makes it difficult to accurately estimate its size, impact, and normative value. However, evidence indicates that 3 consumer activism is a growing phenomenon that elicits participation from a sizeable portion of society with real-world consequences. A review of published international surveys shows that boycotting and petition-signing behaviors increased by 2.9 and 4.4 fold, respectively, from 1974 to 1999 (Stolle et al., 2005). This growth can also be observed in media coverage. The number of news stories published by The New York Times and the Washington Post rose to more than 2,000 yearly from 2000 to 2010, from four in 1990 (Heldman, 2017). Heldman's (2017) recent review of consumer activism cases indicates that many campaigns achieved their goals concerning changes in corporate practices, thus showing that consumer activism can have a real-world impact. Consequently, the growing popular adherence to consumer activism as a viable strategy to influence corporate decisions renders practical relevance and scientific importance to the topic as an object of study. Why Does Understanding Consumer Activism Motivations Matter? Consumer activism motivations matter from theoretical and applied perspectives. From a theoretical perspective, understanding the underlying motivations of consumer activism can better equip researchers to predict what activist-like behaviors are more likely to be enacted. The concept of motivation has been central in psychology to understand, differentiate, and predict human behavior (Woodside & Chebat, 2001). Motivational models tend to fall into the broad category of behaviorism learning theories and have helped explain why individuals behave in a certain way in certain circumstances. Motivation is typically viewed as a learning mechanism because, through past experiences, individuals learn that certain behaviors are more effective than others in achieving a desired consequence or goal. Consequently, when researchers can determine what goals motivate individuals, they are better positioned to predict behaviors. Humans are naturally motivated to engage in a behavioral response congruent with 4 adesired end-state (Gutman, 1982) or personal goals (Ford, 1992). Therefore, people may be motivated to engage in the same behavior for various reasons. Understanding these goals can shed light on several inquiries underexplored in the consumer activism domain. Consumer activists’ goals elicit a motivational force that influences a range of perceptual outcomes including 1) the perceived egregiousness of corporate practices (Klein et al., 2004), 2) assessment of collective action participation costs and gains (John & Klein, 2003), and 3) emotional intensity as evidenced in expressions against target brands on social media (Makarem & Jae, 2016). Additionally, consumer activists’ goal can determine the amount of effort participants are willing to devote to elicit support from others in their social network (Legocki et al., 2020; Makarem & Jae, 2016), thus influencing participation likelihood in boycott campaigns (Klein et al., 2004). Therefore, from an applied perspective, differentiating consumer activist segments based on a measurement of their personally motivating goals will inform future research seeking to understand better why some consumer activism campaigns receive greater support and are more likely to succeed while others fail even to reach the first steps of militance escalation (Friedman, 1995, 2002). Moreover, reliable measurement of consumer activism motives could be helpful to understand when low threshold forms of participation, e.g., online activism or boycotting, are likely to be a “foot-in-the-door” for future engagement via more impactful behaviors, e.g., protesting (Kristofferson et al., 2014; Moskalenko & Mccauley, 2009). Furthermore, consumer activism motivations may be an essential predictor of episodical (low-frequency) participation, e.g., just one tweet to support a campaign, or sustained (high-frequency) action, e.g., multiple tweets throughout a campaign, (Thorson & Wang, 2020; Muraro et al., in press). Furthermore, this knowledge could help campaign organizers strategically decide when 5 to employ a thematic frame, whereby a corporate transgression is contextualized as part of a larger structural problem, or an episodic frame, whereby the transgression itself is the sole focus of the mobilization (Micheletti & Stolle, 2007). In addition, understanding consumer activism personal goals can allow marketing and communication practitioners to compartmentalize activist publics and more effectively tailor their brand and public relations strategies to different segments and deploy custom brand forgiveness (Fetscherin & Sampedro, 2019) and post-incident client recovery strategies (see Khamitov et al. 2020). Why Is It Relevant to Develop a Scale to Measure Motives (Goals) to Engage in Consumer Activism? Although consumer activism motivations have been long discussed in the literature since Friedman's (1985) conceptualization of instrumental and expressive boycotts, the absence of a motivational measurement scale poses considerable challenges to advancing this body of knowledge. Over the past decades, researchers have mapped out different motivations through a myriad of methods, including literature reviews and historical analysis of past campaigns (Friedman, 1991, 1995, 2002; John & Klein, 2003), online interviews, netnographic research (Kozinets & Handelman, 1998), and social media and digital data (Braunsberger & Buckler, 2011; Makarem & Jae, 2016; Yousaf et al., 2021). Although multiple studies have investigated consumer activism motivations, to the best of my knowledge, only a few studies (e.g., Klein et al., 2004; Pandey et al., 2021; Suhud et al., 2017) proposed original measures of consumer activism personally motivated goals, which were developed in the context of boycotting. These measures, however, contain severe issues of content validity and important methodological limitations, as discussed in Chapter 4. Moreover, because these measures have been devised for boycotting only, it is unclear how these could be reliably extended to measure consumer activism 6 motivations across behaviors and whether additional dimensions (or latent factors) may exist when other forms of consumer activism are considered. Therefore, a consumer activism motivational scale is warranted for three main reasons. First, extant scales present significant conceptual and methodological limitations that compromise the validity of the measurement. Second, these scales were developed in the context of boycotting, which limits their application to other activist-like behaviors. Third, a better measurement protocol could significantly contribute to consumer activism knowledge advancement from theoretical and applied perspectives. The scale development research presented in this dissertation is organized as follows. In Chapter 2, a historical overview of consumer activism is provided considering different social movement theories, concluding with a conceptual definition of consumer activism, which is adopted in this manuscript. Chapter 3 concisely reviews the relevant motivational literature in connection with consumer activism. Next, Chapter 4 presents the motivational dimensions that may constitute consumer activism motivations reflected in the reviewed literature, and a nomological framework for consumer activism motivations is proposed. Chapter 5 provides an overview of the overarching methodological steps observed in this dissertation. Chapters 6, 7, and 8 present the results from three studies that sequentially lead to the development of a psychometric measurement scale that meets the recommended standards of reliability and validity in marketing and consumer behavior domains. Finally, Chapter 9 weaves together the findings from the three studies into a general discussion, and a future research agenda is proposed. 7 CHAPTER TWO: CONSUMER ACTIVISM From Workers’ Movement and Social Class Conflicts to Consumer Power in The Neoliberal Economy Activism is often associated with the study of collective actions, and its origins are intertwined with social movements. Therefore, developing a historical understanding of consumer activism as a discipline requires the consideration of critical developments in social movement studies. A social movement is typically composed of multiple collective actions or mobilizations. It is often seen as an integral part of the normal functioning of a society that aims to challenge the role of social, cultural, and political behaviors or institutions with a transformative intention to bring about material, political, social, and cultural changes (Diani & Porta, 2006). A social movement typically arises from a growing dissatisfaction with a particular issue or a social need from a group whose concerns have been ostracized or insufficiently addressed by institutions (Diani & Porta, 2006). The nature of social movements is highly contextual and reflects the affordances and constraints of evolving societal, economic, political, and technological structures of a particular historical period. Resulting of the social and economic changes spurred by the industrial revolution in the 18th century, social movements during most of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries were chiefly associated with class conflicts over material production resources. According to classical Marxism, these conflicts shed light on the power imbalance between the proletarian, i.e., the working class, and the ruling class, who owned the means of material production (Buechler, 1995; Diani & Porta, 2006). Marxism is the predominant theoretical paradigm conceptualizing social movements as an issue of labor. From a Marxist viewpoint, social conflicts were essentially about class conflicts and social domination imbued with an economic logic, whereby 8 the ruling class, legitimized by its control over the means of production, exerted economic and cultural hegemony over the dominated classes (Marx & Engels, 2012). As much as the classical Marxist paradigm is the bedrock for the study of numerous social processes, significant post-World War II social transformations have rendered it inadequate for the analysis of new forms of collective action grounded in non-class-based conflicts and focused on cultural (versus material) production (Buechler, 1995). The end of World War II marks the beginning of a period of profound macroeconomic changes with a solid neoliberal ideological leaning that paved the way for globalization, privatization, market deregulation, and, most importantly, the growth of consumer markets and corporate capitalism (W. L. Bennett, 2012; Diani & Porta, 2006). This unprecedented economic growth extended to social and cultural arenas marked by increasing access to higher education, the growing presence of women in the workplace, technological advancements in communication and media, and a shift in people’s priorities from materialistic to post-materialistic values (Copeland, 2014a). As probably apparent by now, the bivariate relationship between the bourgeoisie and laborers was growing detached from this post-war, post-industrial society and no longer enough to provide scholars with a robust tool to study new forms of social movement, including consumer activism. A paradigm shift in how social movements were conceptualized was not immediate. Still, a shift became imminent in the 1960s in light of a series of mobilizations against racial segregation worldwide, particularly global anti-apartheid movements that included the boycott of South African goods and the civil rights movements in the U.S. (Buechler, 1995; Hawkins, 2010). These movements were not about class membership. Instead, together with other social and environmental justice movements, such as feminism, LGBTQIA+ rights, and veganism, they demonstrated the need to look beyond class and into race, gender, sexual orientation, and 9 political values. In addition, they did not seek control over the means of production. Instead, they meant to re-signify the meaning of being Black, gay, vegan, or any other social minority and elicit cultural changes consistent with the construction of activists’ envisioned reality. As Buechler (1995) posed, the 1960s highlighted the inadequacy of classical Marxism's economic and class reductionist approach. This created an opportunity for social movement theorists, especially Alain Touraine (1985) and Alberto Melucci (1980, 1995), to articulate a new perspective about the underlying mechanisms and motivations of social movement activists, the so-called new social movement theory. Historical Note About Consumer Activism Although consumer activism has only become a recognizable social force in the early 60s, it is crucial to note that consumption-oriented collective actions go back at least 250 years in the U.S. In analyzing the history of consumer movements, Heldman (2017) has identified seven distinct waves of the so-called consumer revolution. Ad hoc mobilizations against specific issues represent the first five waves. Examples include American colonists’ protests against the tax increase proposed by the Stamp Act, which entailed the boycotting of certain imported goods between 1765 and 1770, and the Free Produce Movement, where abolitionists encouraged the purchasing of items originated from free labor through a series of buycott campaigns. Buycotting is defined as redirecting shopping choices to reward selected brands (Heldman, 2017). As much as these early campaigns are based on an economic logic of withholding or redirecting purchase demands, they are not based on a consumer identity. It is not that people did not purchase products before, but the scale it happened was negligible. Consumer markets were incipient, and the idea of a consumer was nonexistent until the late 19th century (Trentmann, 2016). In addition, these early boycotts and buycotts were centrally orchestrated by unions, abolitionist groups, or political parties to bring about change. Consumers were used much like 10 paramilitary groups would use civilians as a human shield or, less extremely, like children are told how to behave by their parents. Only in the 1960s, when consumption and consumeristic logic had become an integral part of our social identity and social reality, the marketplace became solid enough to provide consumers with a platform to exercise their political values (consumer agency). Therefore, as discussed in this manuscript, consumer activism assumes a consumer who is a self-reflexive market agent capable of using their individual shopping decisions for public issues, which is congruent with Micheletti's (2003) definition of political consumerism. The Emergence of Consumer Activism as a Socially Transformative Force New social movement theory was proposed by social theorists, including Alain Touraine (1985) and Alberto Melucci (1980, 1995), as a framework to study value-driven, and less- centrally organized social movements that emerged after World War II. This form of social mobilization was no longer focused on addressing issues of class, primarily. Thus, representing a shift from classic labor movements. The post-World War II economic growth experienced in multiple countries allowed citizens, in general, to move up on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and approach collective action as a platform for self-actualization, that is, to pursue the achievement of self-relevant values and goals. As posed by Copeland (2014a), the post-materialistic value shift embraced by contemporary social movements, consumer activism inclusive, reflects the changing social priorities due to economic prosperity. Post-materialistic values include ascribing considerable importance to individualism, personal freedoms (including freedom of speech), and a growing concern for the other, meaning other social groups, other nations, or even other generations, which is congruent with more significant support from public opinion for social justice, 11 economic justice, and environmental protection causes. Therefore, these contemporary, value-driven social movements aim to change the social reality and dismantle systemic problems by changing the culture (e.g., Kim, 2021; Rahbari, 2021). As Alain Touraine (1985) posed, these movements are about “shaping historicity,” the overall system of dominant ideas, rules, and meanings created by those in power. For instance, when the corporate elite turned a blind eye to the use of child or underpaid labor in Southern Asian sweatshops for the production of fashion items for exportation to economically developed countries, citizens in those consumer markets were shocked and challenged such controversial business operations, to normalize them as unacceptable practices (Micheletti & Stolle, 2007). The example above was not selected randomly but to highlight a significant social- economic shift in which new social movements are embedded: corporate and consumer power growth. In this context, citizens realized that consumption was more than a financial transaction (Micheletti, 2003). It had become a process of political power transfer from consumers to corporations (Micheletti, 2003). In parallel, corporate agents learned that to sustain their economic dominance, they could not simply focus on expanding market share through trading goods and services but on increasing their share of influence on public decisions, i.e., to govern (Micheletti & Stolle, 2007). This new social-economic reality pushed social movements and contentious politics into the marketplace and allowed consumer activism and political consumerism to emerge as a new form of political participation. Corporations hold a privileged position in politics with disproportional influence over public policies and electoral outcomes (Heldman, 2017). This corporate disproportional influence eclipses essential democratic foundations, such as political equality and equitable popular representation (Heldman, 2017). Therefore, consumer movements 12 have an underlying political meaning of affirming popular sovereignty over corporations (Micheletti, 2003). At this point, this literature review identified the extrinsic macro-social, political, and economic factors that fostered the emergence of consumer activism as a socially transformative force. Equally important, however, is the examination of collective action internal factors that facilitate collective organization and mobilization, which are discussed below. The Role of Collective Identity as Motivational Force in Consumer Activism In earlier forms of consumer activism (until the 2000s), the world was not connected, high-speed internet was a thing of the future, and the traditional mass media dominated communications. In this context, it is plausible to ask how loosely connected networks of consumers would overcome the challenges of collective action organization and the costs associated with resource mobilization and individual participation to come together as a movement with sustained overtime commitment. This is not a trivial question. Understanding what sustains individual commitment in new social movements is fundamental since the force of a collective action resides in the numbers of highly committed supporters, and without that, a mobilization is bound to failure (Buechler, 1995; Diani & Porta, 2006; Heldman, 2017; Melucci, 1995). Attempting to answer this question, Alberto Melucci (1995) proposed the concept of collective identity as an analytical tool for studying social movements. Melucci suggests that by actively constructing a shared definition of “who we are” and “why we are here,” a heterogenous cluster of social actors can identify themselves as sharing a similar ontological perspective about the world and legitimize the very own existence of their movement. According to Melucci, collective identity can be defined as an active and evolving process (and not a fixed individual trait such as the concept of self-identity) of negotiating a shared ontological perspective related 13 to an issue or cause. A collective identity functions as a motivational powerhouse as well as a mobilization compass that unifies, guides, and stimulates members to turn their fears, moral indignation, and anger into cohesive actions aligned with a shared goal against an opponent (Kozinets & Handelman, 2004; Melucci, 1995). Therefore, the internalization of a collective identity would contribute to movement continuity and permanence by reinforcing an internal system of solidarity among members and partially offsetting the individual participation costs (Melucci, 1995). A collective identity represents individuals’ emotional investment in a specific issue or cause and other social movement members in a solidarity network that differentiates in- group members from their environment. Social movements’ collective identities represent an iterative, collaborative process of reality construction facilitated by social movement framing processes. Benford and Snow (2000) propose that the general concept of framing can be used as an analytical tool to understand how activists come together to diffuse their ideas, create cultural capital, identify a common opponent, articulate a goal, negotiate a plan of attack, garner external support, and most importantly, construct a collective identity. The authors pose three main types of frames, diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational frames, which jointly contribute to building a shared meaning concerning who we are, what the problem is, who should be blamed for the problem, and what the movement intends to do about that. Therefore, the communicative process is essential for a cohesive collective action to emerge with a solid path forward underpinned by the negotiation and renegotiation of a common “we.” As posed by Melucci (1995), “a failure or a break in this constructive process makes the action impossible” (p. 44). As we will later see, this assumption has been challenged and may not always hold when consumer activism, social fragmentation, and social media are blended in the same social context. 14 Social Fragmentation and Social Media: From Collective to Individualized Collective Actions Social media and social fragmentation, dwindling political participation, and growing skepticism toward public institutions have significantly reshaped consumer activism over the last two decades. By democratizing access to user-generated content platforms, social media changed how consumers coalesce and participate in a collective effort to hold corporations accountable for their ethical violations, which is discussed and contextualized in the subsections below. To explain this process and its impact on consumer activism, the following subsection presents the concept of individualized collective actions and connects it to the emergence of individualization, a post-materialistic value highly correlated with political consumerism (Baek, 2010; Copeland, 2014a; Stolle et al., 2005). Then, the subsequent subsection explains how social media has significantly changed and empowered consumer activism. Consumer Activism as Individualized Collective Action As previously mentioned, in the 1970s, traditional forms of political participation started to dim, as indicated by dwindling voter turnout numbers and shrinking political rallies attendance (Copeland, 2014b; Stolle et al., 2005). This decrease in political participation has been accompanied by a growth in political skepticism (Bennett et al., 2013; Goodwin & Jasper, 2014). Political skepticism has largely been driven by citizens’ perceptions that governments’ actions are ineffective and inefficient to address the social, political and environmental problems of present times (Micheletti, 2003). Hence, consumers have realized that the government had become just a middle person. A faster and more efficient way to solve public problems was to directly place their political demands onto business corporations (Micheletti, 2003). This meant an inward orientation toward solving public issues, whereby citizens started to engage in individual responsibility-taking 15 behaviors concerning social, political, and environmental problems. Consequently, personal everyday life choices began to carry a political, self-expressive meaning denoted as political lifestyle (de Moor, 2017). Personalized political lifestyles emerged in this context by blurring the lines between public and private, where personal decisions, such as modes of living, waste disposal, transportation, and purchase decisions, become a platform to elicit social change, solve public problems, draw public attention to self-relevant public issues and, equally important, express ethical, moral, social, and political beliefs. Haenfler et al. (2012) argue that adherence to a political lifestyle is a process of an ideal-self cultivation and expression. It entails a form of prefigurative politics, where individuals cultivate a self-constructed miniature version of their ideal reality. For example, by boycotting certain brands, vegans are not only expressing their political support for more stringent regulations for animal welfare, but they are creating a miniature, individualized version of reality free of brands that inflict harm to animals. Thus, political consumerism and contemporary consumer activism are apparent results of politicizing everyday life choices, i.e., political lifestyle, which, as de Moor (2017) argued, can be illustrated by the mantra “be the change you want to see in the world.” Adherence to a personalized political lifestyle is motivated by individuals’ personal identities and self-expressive needs to display their moral coherence concerning the changes they advocate (Haenfler et al., 2012). Consequently, personalized political lifestyles have created space for the emergence of a new form of mobilization, namely, individualized collective actions, a term coined by Micheletti (2003). Individualized collective actions diverge from conventional collective mobilizations in several vital aspects (W. L. Bennett, 2012). Although both forms of mobilizations concern 16 loosely connected networks of members motivated by post-materialistic values, individualized collective actions are formed by the participation of a more diverse, heterogeneous mob. For this reason, constructing a collective identity is more complex and not required for the emergence of an individualized collective action. This means that members do not subscribe to a specific course of action or list of demands reflected in a more broadly, organically defined set of causes and goals embraced by the mobilization. What connects participants to the collective action is the opportunity to engage in highly personal expressions of anger, contempt, and disgust around “any number of emotional targets” (Bennett, 2012, p. 23). The author argues that in current times, allowing individuals to perceive a social movement as a platform for self-expression through personalized social movement frames is imperative for mobilization success. Stitching it all Together: The Logic of Connective Action Without the technological affordances of social media, individualized collective actions would not have been possible (Shah et al., 2012). Bennett and Segerberg's (2013) logic of connective action theory adds a fresh reconceptualization of political lifestyle social movement dynamics in the context of social media. The core tenet of the theory postulates that social media and other user-generated content platforms function as organizing agents that enable more organic and fluid social movement formation and continuity through co-production and co- distribution mechanisms that facilitate members to customize, contextualize, and personalize campaign information. Furthermore, in the digital space, movement engagement has a low associated participation cost relative to other public mobilization forms, such as in-person demonstrations. Consequently, another fundamental principle is that movement free-riding or weak activism commitment from participants is not a problem. As much as digital activism can be partially 17 sustained by highly engaged participants who post and share frequently, also called serial participants (Thorson & Wang, 2020), the power of digital consumer activism also resides in the sporadic participation of less strongly-committed individuals who might post, share, or like a social media message once or twice (Muraro et al., in press). Therefore, weakly-committed participants are embraced, as even trivial engagement can help spread campaign messages, thus allowing them to arrive at far-reaching corners of the digital world. That is, every tweet, post, like, and share counts. Connective actions can vary at their organizational level, ranging from self-organizing mobilizations, with reduced or absent central coordination, to organizationally-enabled actions, where a formal organization or group plays an indirect role in herding the crowd (W. L. Bennett & Segerberg, 2013). Regardless of their organizational level, three main structuring mechanisms are vital to allow a loosely connected, diverse digital crowd to come together as a coherent mobilization: 1) content production, which entails content creation and posting; 2) content curation, which concerns the selection of relevant content through likes and shares; and 3) dynamic integration, which refers to the cross-platform integration of content (W. L. Bennett et al., 2014). As demonstrated by the authors, a connective action is better represented not as a single massive network of participants but as multiple small networks of social media users that overlap, thus reverberating curated campaign messages to different networks and social media platforms. When Brands Become the Enemy Scholars have not sufficiently addressed the role of brands in political consumerism and social movements. Still, the theoretical developments in individualized collective actions indicate two possible ways brands can become the enemy in consumer mobilizations: 1) brands as emotional targets and 2) the politics of products. 18 In Bennett's (2012) conceptualization of individualized collective actions, corporate and product brands can become emotional targets for consumers to express their anger and moral indignation against violations carried out by a corporate elite. This view is congruent with the marketing literature concerning consumer responses to brand ethical transgressions (see Aaker et al., 2004; Aggarwal, 2004; Grappi et al., 2013; Romani et al., 2015; Trump, 2014; Xie & Bagozzi, 2019). Brand transgressions are defined as “[acts of] violation of the implicit or explicit rules guiding relationship performance and evaluation [between consumers and brands]” (Aaker et al., 2004, p. 2). Micheletti and Stolle (2007) proposed that consumer activism campaigns can frame market injustices thematically, where the specific brand transgression is contextualized as part of a larger structural problem, or episodically, where the brand transgression itself is the sole focus of the mobilization. This conceptualization suggests that consumer activists are not homogeneous and can range in their underlying orientations in campaign participation (Muraro et al., in press). While some individuals might be more strongly motivated by political values and able to mentally connect a high-profile case of brand transgression to a self-relevant political cause, others might be more strongly motivated to express their moral indignation against the brand itself. Therefore, while issue self-relevance might be more potent in eliciting support from politically-oriented consumers through a thematic frame, building a campaign around a high- profile brand using episodic framing can be decisive in garnering support from brand-oriented consumers. The second proposed route connecting brands to consumer activism is based on the salience of the politics of products, which refers to the fact that every product is imbued with a political meaning (Micheletti, 2003). Product supply chain, manufacturing process, use, and 19 disposal are intrinsically connected to political, social, or environmental causes. For example, is the consumption of coffee capsules for my afternoon cup of espresso creating environmental problems? Is this brand sponsoring events in countries that do not recognize LGBTQIA+ rights? Consequently, the politics of products and brands may be a conduit for collective expressions of lifestyle politics in the form of organized boycott campaigns motivated by a self-actualization need, where individual consumers may actively avoid and remove certain brands from their lives for their incongruence with their political beliefs. So far, this chapter has provided a historical account of consumer activism and discussed the most relevant social movement theories that provide foundational frames of reference for conceptualizing consumer activism emergence and progression as a collective action. Next, we draw on extant literature to devise a definition of consumer activism for scale development. Conceptually Defining Consumer Activism The growing consumer activism literature has identified multiple behaviors that can be considered forms of consumer activism, from boycotts, i.e., an act against a company signified by a lack of action, that of non-purchasing, or a non-purchasing action, to online action, sometimes referred to as slacktivism or clicktivism, such as social media posting and sharing (Barry et al., 2022; Heldman, 2017). Still, only a few researchers have conceptually defined the term. According to Heldman (2017), consumer activism refers to “citizen actions directed toward business entities to explicitly influence social goods and values” (p. 2). As part of a consumer activism typological effort, Muraro and Rifon (in press) propose the following working definition: “a publicly enacted collective action directed against brands and their business entities with the intention to bring about change concerning an issue of public interest” (p. 5). Equally relevant, the definition of political consumerism, a term coined by Micheletti 20 (2003), is stated as “actions by people who make choices among producers and products with the goal of changing objectionable institutional or market practices” (p. 2). Borrowing from extant definitions and the reviewed literature, the following definition is articulated to guide this scale development effort: Consumer activism is a goal-oriented behavior targeting a company concerning a public issue of personal relevance. Taken together, the definitions mentioned above and the reviewed literature indicate six underlying premises of consumer activism, namely, the 6 Ps of consumer activism, illustrated in Figure 1. Consumer activism is (1) personal (Kozinets & Handelman, 1998) that can be expressed through a (2) plurality of behaviors (Heldman, 2017). Moreover, it is guided by a vision of how the world should look like (Cabrera et al., 2017) and implies “the ability to act and make or change history” (Cammaerts, 2007, p. 217). Therefore, it is (3) pro-change – even if change means reforming structures or practices back to how they used to be, the case of conservative-leaning activism (Heldman, 2017). Last, consumer activism is distinguished from other forms of activism because it places public demands directly onto (4) private businesses (Heldman, 2017; Micheletti, 2003). We have identified two additional Ps, people and public behavior, that represent relevant but not necessary conditions to conceptualize consumer activism. This distinction is made because as much as activism is something done together by many (5) people (Cabrera et al., 2017; Cammaerts, 2007) and entails a (6) public behavior (Svirsky, 2010), the reviewed literature indicates these are not always the case for consumer activism as an individualized form of collective action (Micheletti, 2003). 21 Figure 1. The 6 Ps of Consumer Activism Note. *Non-necessary conditions. Personal For some, consumer activism is about standing up for their moral beliefs and using their shopping decisions and online presence to make a difference. From this perspective, consumer activism could be seen as a modern take on the Goliath and David story, wherein citizens collectively try to ascertain their popular sovereignty over powerful corporations (Micheletti, 2003). For others, it is an opportunity for self-enhancement or self-expression to vent their anger against egregious corporate actions and feel good about themselves for doing the right thing (Klein et al., 2004; Kozinets & Handelman, 1998; Makarem & Jae, 2016). In this context, consumer activism can be seen as an expressive platform for consumer to attain desirable cognitive and affective outcomes. Regardless of whether consumers aim to make a real-world difference or to achieve some positive psychological outcome, consumer activism is a highly 22 personal experience connected to a self-relevant public issue (Albrecht, Campbell, et al., 2013; O’Cass & Griffin, 2006). Thus, a personal connection with an issue or a cause is crucial to unify different consumer activism expressions under the same conceptual umbrella. In addition, this first premise (or P) is important to establish a conceptual boundary condition between consumer activism and other forms of anti-brand behaviors that may fall outside the activism domain (Muraro & Rifon, in press). Non-activist, anti-brand behaviors are represented by negative customer behavioral responses, including complaining and purchase avoidance, linked to an individual experience concerning subpar product or service performance perceptions (Aaker et a., 2004; Bougie et al., 2003, Gregóire et al., 2018, Khamitov et al., 2020). The consumer activism definition articulated above is congruent with prior conceptual definitions in establishing a connection between action and a personally relevant issue tethered to the public sphere of interest. This is because activism necessarily seeks the promotion of a common interest (Tilly, 1978) or the creation of a social good (Heldman, 2017). This distinction is helpful because it lessens scholars’ need to rely on activism exemplars to identify the conceptual boundaries of consumer activism and non-activist, anti-brand behaviors (Podsakoff et al., 2010). Thus, when consumers respond to a product or service failure to raise awareness and minimize harm to others, that can be considered an example of consumer activism since there is an underlying connection between action and the public interest. This is exemplified by M&M’s use of unhealthy colorants case, when consumers engaged in activist-like behaviors due to a public health concern (Minocher, 2019). Plurality of Behaviors The literature on the repertoires of contention, a term coined by Tilly (1978), demonstrates that activists rely on a vast repertoire of behaviors to challenge the status quo and express their grievances or interests (McAdam et al., 2001). A repertoire of contention available 23 to the public is an evolving menu of strategies. For example, public demonstrations, such as picketing, marches, and temporary occupation of spaces, were part of the repertoire of most Americans in the 20th century (McAdam et al., 2001). Internet, social media, and mobile connectivity affordances allowed the inclusion of new collective action forms to activists’ strategic menu, such as online content production and sharing (Barry et al., 2022; Legocki et al., 2020; Makarem & Jae, 2016; Yousaf et al., 2021). This plurality of behaviors comprising the repertoires of contention for consumer activism has been recently documented by Heldman (2017). The author has identified four main types of consumer activism strategies. (Non)purchasing actions, which entail boycotting and boycotting; investment actions, which include socially responsible investing and divesting; social media actions, which encompass multiple online forms of participation; and direct actions, which describe real-world activities, including sit-ins, demonstrations, and culture jamming. Additionally, a long-standing gap in the broad literature of activism concerning the differential levels of perceived effort and commitment across activists’ behaviors has been recently addressed by Barry et al. (2022). The authors demonstrate that activism behaviors vary in the amount of commitment required for their enactment. Pro-Change To exist, activism requires three essential components: people, action (public behavior), and beliefs (Tilly, 1978). According to the author, the intersection of people and action is called an event, and the intersection between people and shared beliefs is denoted as a group. “Collective action consists of people’s acting together in pursuit of common interests” (Tilly, 1978, pp. 1-11). Thus, activism resides at the intersection of all components: people, actions, and beliefs. In the context of activism, beliefs are equivalent to Alain Touraine’s (as cited by Diani & Porta, 2006) notion of historicity. As previously explained, social movements aim to control and 24 shape the social system of accepted ideas, values, and practices. For example, the veganism movement ideal could be seen as a historicity-shaping attempt to promote animal liberation. Thus, a precondition of activism is the concept of human agency or efficacy beliefs: the belief that individuals can change the external environment through their actions, thereby altering their futures (Bandura, 2006). Not surprisingly, efficacy beliefs have been extensively investigated in the consumer activism literature under different labels, such as motivation to make a difference (Klein et al., 2004), perceived efficacy (Sen et al., 2001), perceived boycott success (Nguyen et al., 2018; Sen et al., 2001), and consumer collective efficacy (Ji & Kim, 2020; Lee, 2010). Therefore, activism should be guided by a vision of how the world should look like (Cabrera et al., 2017) coupled with an intention to make it happen. If the envisioned world is already an unchallenged reality, activism would not be needed. Consequently, activism is a pro- change endeavor. Private Business Consumer activism arises when activism meets the marketplace. By understanding the logic of market exchanges and gaining awareness of their consumer power, activists are equipped to interfere in the marketplace to challenge corporations with the purpose to bring about specific changes. As earlier presented, consumer activism emerged more strongly after World War II, a period of economic prosperity reflected in the expansion of consumer markets and corporate capitalism (W. L. Bennett, 2012; Diani & Porta, 2006). This growth in consumer and corporate power, coupled with declining trust in political institutions observed since the 1970s (Baek, 2010; Copeland, 2014a; Micheletti & Stolle, 2007), has fostered a public perception that placing public demands directly onto corporations, as opposed to government representatives, can be an effective strategy to spur change. The previously introduced three Ps of consumer activism can be seen as a shared premise 25 between consumer activism and other forms of collective actions. However, the explicit direction of public demands on private businesses differentiates it from other types of activism. Businesses can be nonsurrogate or surrogate targets of activists (Friedman, 1991). Nonsurrogate business targets are characterized by business entities that are both the target and the offender of an issue of public interest. Nonsurrogate consumer activism arises when business entities are known for violating or transgressing on relevant issues to consumers (Friedman, 1991). On the other hand, surrogate business targets are characterized by business entities that are pressed to take action on behalf of consumer activists against an offending party. The Facebook Advertisers Boycott is a clear example of surrogate consumer activism. Consumers exerted pressure against Facebook advertisers to pull their ads from the social media platform to support consumer activists’ concerns about the uncontrolled spread of misinformation and hate speech on Facebook (Hsu & Lutz, 2020). The ongoing war in Ukraine has also spurred surrogate consumer activism actions against Russian products and brands (Paybarah, 2022). In such instances, where consumer activism focuses on a surrogate business target to exert pressure over an offending government entity, “their [consumer activists’] objective is to transform issues concerned with objectionable practices external to the marketplace (such as a foreign government’s oppressive policies) into consumer-accessible marketplace issues” (Friedman, 1991, p. 154). Public The collective action literature reviewed above underscores the public nature of activism. From early consumer movements orchestrated around a shared collective identity to more contemporary expressions of individualized collective action, activism entails a public performance of multiple online and offline behaviors. The public nature of activism seems pivotal for two main reasons. First, the public announcement and enactment of anti-brand action 26 are strategically crucial to an activism campaign because they can harness media coverage. Promoting active media coverage predicts campaign success (Friedman, 1995; Heldman, 2017). The public announcement of consumer activism action is typically the first step in many boycott campaigns (Friedman, 1991, 1995). “The more widespread and prominent the news media coverage, the more likely that the targeted firms will yield to the demands of the boycotters” (Friedman, 1991, p. 160). Second, the public nature of activism plays a crucial role in attracting others consumers to the cause (Svirsky, 2010). “Activism is not a secluded or hidden phenomenon. It is extroverted, involved in the generation of public events” (Svirsky, 2010, p. 171). Bennett and Segerberg's (2013) logic of connective action theory also underscores the importance of the public nature of consumer activism. Through online public behaviors, activism messages are produced, curated, and propagated, thus creating a snowball effect of activism engagement. Thus far, the concept of “public” is enmeshed with that of “publicity.” That is, consumer activism comprises a set of behaviors publicly performed to harness media attention and attract support, i.e., to publicize a consumer activism campaign. However, the literature shows that some consumer activist-like behaviors, such as boycotting or petition signing, are not necessarily public behaviors and can be performed privately. For instance, “boycotters consider their boycotting to be a personal, rather than a communal act” (Kozinets & Handelman, 1998, p. 477). This is congruent with the so-called lifestyle movements (Haenfler et al., 2012) and the concept of political consumerism (Micheletti, 2003), which propose that activist-like actions can be publicly expressed or may comprise a set of private individual actions representing individual responsibility-taking behaviors. Therefore, we propose that the concept of “public” is relevant in 27 conceptualizing consumer activism. However, it should not be treated as a necessary condition of it. People Similarly, the concept of “people” seems relevant but not necessary for conceptualizing consumer activism since it can be expressed as an individual decision. Stills, it is essential to acknowledge that the power of collective actions resides in numbers. “A social movement of one is not a social movement at all” (Cabrera, 2012, p. 396). According to Tilly's (1978) polity model, the power of collective action is a multiplicative function of the intensity and duration of the contentious behavior and the size of the collectivity measured in numbers of people. The relative size of a collective action directly influences its capacity to ascertain its power and successfully challenge dominant institutions. “The more powerful the group, the less likely its repression […] the group’s political power is the extent to which its interests prevail over those of the government [or other dominant groups] when the two sets of interests are in conflict” (Tilly, 1978, p. 4-27-30). Similarly, as argued by Tarrow (2009), it is only through numbers that “the group [can] convince its opponents of its own strength” (p. 23). This same logic is applied to consumer activism, where consumer power relies on online and offline engagement numbers. The significance of “people” as a premise of activism is present in multiple theoretical frameworks that aim to explain social mobilization. From the perspective of a resource mobilization theory (McCarthy & Zald, 1977), the importance of attracting and motivating people to engage in a collection action is framed around the problem of “free ride.” Collective action free-riding happens when perceived participation cost and collection action success are high enough to prompt people to free-ride on the work of activists and enjoy the collective goods that can arise from a collective action effort (Tarrow, 2009). From a new social movement theory 28 viewpoint, the “people” dimension of activism is also underscored by Melucci's (1995) concept of collective identity, through which activists negotiate a unified perspective about the problem. The power of the masses is also central to the individualized collective action framework (W. L. Bennett, 2012; Micheletti, 2003). From this perspective, where collective actions do not require high levels of participation or the sharing of a unified collective identity, the power resides in the size of multiple online and offline networks that overlap in sustaining action. A Brief Note on Consumer Activism Criticism as a Form for Political Participation It is essential to recognize that consumer activism and political consumerism are not unanimously endorsed as a form of political participation. Some criticism was built around the fact that consumption is often at the core of many social problems. Therefore, some scholars do not view political consumerism as a venue for achieving structural changes (Baumann et al., 2015). Another research line that has contended against this viewpoint is based on demographic analyses of consumer activists. These skew younger, are more highly educated, and belong to racial majorities compared to non-political consumers (Baumann et al., 2015; Micheletti & Stolle, 2012a). These demographic distinctions indicate socio-economic barriers for the general population to express themselves politically in the marketplace, which runs counter to the concept of universal political participation in a democratic society. Baumann and colleagues (2015) argue that even if political consumerism is a platform for political participation, that happens in a way that overrepresents the wealthy. In many cases, boycotts require consumers to replace products with more expensive substitutes (Kam & Deichert, 2020), meaning that not everyone can afford to be a political consumer or at least a highly active one. This poses a critical political representation problem, particularly in the context of individualized collective actions, where social movement demands 29 stem directly from citizens’ private agendas and personal interests and not from a socially negotiated list of demands, which can alienate other, equally deserving citizens from expressing their grievances. Therefore, as much as political consumerism and consumer activism are tools for political action, it is crucial to understand and accept their limitations. Albeit valid criticism, as presented above, the effectiveness of political consumer and consumer activism as a platform for political and social change cannot be ignored. According to Heldman's (2017) assessment of a sample of less than one hundred recent campaigns in different political domains, from economic justice and human rights to environmental protection and animal welfare, the majority was successful in achieving some of their goals, mainly concerning changing specific business practices in selected industries. The author also qualitatively gauged campaigns’ overall democratic impact based on several factors, including the promotion of citizen participation and the quality of that participation (i.e., whether equal political participation and representation were achieved or not), as well as the promotion of public awareness to the cause, corporate accountability, and government accountability. Overall, the democratic impact of most campaigns is somewhat unsatisfactory. Furthermore, although many consumer activism campaigns seem to have effectively promoted corporate responsibility, consumer activism still faces problems concerning equal representation and the promotion of government accountability. Therefore, consumer activists seem to have somewhat effectively used their purchase power (and social media accounts!) to hold corporations accountable for their misdeeds and influence business practices in the marketplace. But, unfortunately, they have been less effective in using their socially transformative power in the political arena. This is particularly worrisome because it leaves large corporations unchecked to continue to exert anti-democratic, hidden 30 influence on politics by lobbying their way into policymaking and swaying electoral outcomes through their sizeable political donations. 31 CHAPTER THREE: HUMAN MOTIVATION Motivation is not a tangible concept. We cannot directly observe it, nor can we directly measure it. Still, as a concept, it holds scientific importance for explaining, simplifying, and predicting human behavior (see Zaltman et al., 1982, p. 77-80). Motivation is a foundational concept from psychology that can help us understand why people move from a state of inertia to one of action. “Motivation can be defined as the internal state of an organism that drives it to behave in a certain way. Drives are the motivational forces that cause individuals to be active and strive for certain goals” (De Mooij, 2019, p. 172). The study of human motivation is focused on answering why people act or react differently in seemingly similar situations and how behavioral choices are connected to achieving desired end-states or goals, i.e., stimuli (S) – response (R) relationship. Many motivational concepts and frameworks exist and have evolved to explain the complexity of human behavior – for comprehensive historical reviews on this topic, see: Berridge (2004), Ford, (1992), and Pincus (2004). In the early 1900s, motivational research was mainly focused on physiological needs and behaviors (Berridge, 2004), and models such as the hydraulic system (Lorenz, 1950) and drive reduction (Millee & Kessen, 1952) gained popularity. The hydraulic system proposes that motivational drive grows and builds up in our system, similar to water in a reservoir. Then, it is released (and reduced) based on internal physiological response mechanisms to an external stimulus. The drive reduction theory extends this idea by proposing that humans are motivated to reduce drive (Berridge, 2004). In their seminal work with non-human animals, Millee and Kessen's (1952) central theoretical assumption is that drive leads to an uncomfortable state of arousal, and animals behave to reduce it. In their study, hunger drive was reduced among rats fed by mouth or a fistula, and in both cases, the animals learned the rewarding behavior to reduce drive, although mouth feeding led to faster learning. 32 In the meantime, other perspectives were proposed. For instance, Maslow's (1943) theory of human motivation infused the literature with a more human-centered motivational framework for which the notion of physiological drivers was not essential. Maslow’s original aim for offering a theory of human motivation was that, at that time, most motivational drive research had focused on physiological deprivation and consummatory behavioral response enacted by humans and less cognitively sophisticated animals under situations of hunger and thirst. Under those atypical situations, as regarded by the author, physiological drivers might be necessary for predicting motivated behavior. However, when thinking about humans, circumscribing motivational sources to an underlying physiological drive can lead to restrictive knowledge that does not capture the full complexity of human motivations. For instance, “the healthy, normal, fortunate adult in our culture is largely satisfied in [their] safety needs” (Maslow, 1943, p. 378). As the scientific field advanced, other models were proposed to also account for non- physiological behaviors, such as the cognitive expectancy model (Bolles, 1972), incentive motivation (Toates, 1986), and goal-directed behaviors (Ford, 1992; Gutman, 1982). Cognitive expectancy and incentive motivation entail a cognitive attachment between specific outcomes and certain behaviors (or stimuli), thus creating a belief concerning an act-outcome expectancy. More recently, researchers have then conceptualized human behavior as motivated by personally relevant goals, as proposed in Gutman's (1982) means-end chain (MEC) framework and Ford's (1992) motivational systems theory (MST), which are briefly reviewed below. Means-End Chain (MEC) Gutman's (1982) MEC framework proposes that behaviors can be motivated by the desire to achieve an end-state determined by deeply held or terminal values (Rokeach, 1972). 33 Therefore, behavioral enactment is a means to achieve a desirable consequence (also called goals). Consequence desirability and salience, or the lack thereof, are determined by values and context. Therefore, the MEC’s assumption is that humans are predisposed to choose behaviors resulting in desired consequences. In short, “the means-end chain is focused on the linkages between where a person wants to be and the means chosen to get there” (Gutman, 1982, p. 68). Consequences are the result of a behavior choice. In the context of consumption, a consequence can be conceptualized in terms of product benefits, e.g., eating cereals in the morning can give people more energy to get more done. Consequences are contextual. For instance, having a bowl of cereal at night may lead to indigestion and a restless night of sleep, an undesired consequence. Values determine the valence of consequences. Eating cereal in the morning may be a desirable consequence for individuals who put a prime on social recognition. By having more energy, they can get more done, and by getting more done, they can be more productive at work and one step closer to that job promotion that will fulfill their need for social recognition. Therefore achieving desirable consequences and avoiding negative ones are primary motivators in consumer behavior (Gutman, 1997). Motivational Systems Theory (MST) Ford's (1992) MST is an integrative theory that systematized multiple motivational models into a typology of human motivation. This highly cited theory proposes three primary constructs to explain human motivation: personal goals, emotional arousal, and agency beliefs. Personal goals are directive cognitive processes adopted by individuals – thus, they cannot be forced upon them. Personal goals guide peoples’ behaviors and represent a desired, specific consequence that can be achieved through action, congruent with Gutman's (1982) definition of a desirable end-state or consequence. Emotional arousal is an anticipatory, affective response to a 34 situation that increases an individual’s energy to take action, also regarded as action readiness. Finally, agency beliefs consist of evaluative and ongoing assessment concerning the individual’s capabilities to attain the desired outcome in a given context through a specific behavior. Thus, MST proposes that human motivation is a function of personal goals, emotional arousal, and agency beliefs: “Thus motivation is an integrative construct representing the direction a person is going, the emotional energy and affective experience supporting or inhibiting movement in that direction, and the expectancies a person has about whether they can ultimately reach their destination” (Ford, 1992, p. 78). Personal Goals as a Motivational Component in Consumer Activism The different perspectives concerning human motivation seem to converge in defining motivation as a force or energy to achieve a desired goal or consequence or fulfill a need, which can be amplified or attenuated by emotional arousal and agency beliefs. Additionally, the multiple theoretical perspectives reviewed seem to concur that the inferred causal connection between stimulus-behaviors-consequences tends to happen through a learning mechanism based on past experiences, to the exception of instinct behavior which is seen as “unlearned patterns of behavior […] encoded in all members of the same species” (Pincus, 2004, p. 377). Furthermore, the literature review above indicates a shared agreement that people can do the same thing for different reasons, i.e., a multi-motivational perspective. Consumer activists are seen as social agents pursuing personally relevant goals through their actions (Friedman, 1991; Klein et al., 2004; Laas, 2006; Micheletti, 2003; Nguyen et al., 2018). Understanding and differentiating the goals influencing motivated consumer activism can allow researchers to explore how a seemingly similar behavior to hold a company accountable can be an expression of vastly different goals. As discussed earlier, this carries important 35 scientific and practical implications for consumer movements and business. Thus, we focus on consumer activists’ personal goals as a starting point to conceptualize consumer activism motivation, which will then inform the scale development research work. In the next chapter, we review the relevant literature to show how consumer activism motivations, emphasizing personal goals, have been conceptualized and operationalized. 36 CHAPTER FOUR: CONSUMER ACTIVISM MOTIVATIONAL GOALS AND NOMOLOGICAL NETWORK The pre-identification of potential dimensions of a concept is a preparatory step in scale development (Carpenter, 2018). “A literature review is necessary to map the dimensional structure of the construct because researchers need to craft items that reflect their theoretical understanding of each dimension” (Carpenter, 2018, p. 27). This step is important because it determines the breadth of a concept and will guide future effort in demonstrating its content validity. Content validity is “the degree to which an operationalization represents the concept about which generalizations are to be made” (Zaltman et al., 1982, p. 90). In this chapter, we present the results of a literature review focused on how consumer activism motivational goals have been conceptualized in the literature. Next, we examine extant measure operationalizations identified in this process. Additionally, it is crucial for researchers who aim to develop a scale to understand how the focal concept relates to other concepts in a nomological framework, through which a measurement scale’s nomological validity properties can be assessed. Nomological validity is “the degree to which predictions based on the concept which an instrument purports to measure are confirmed” (Zaltman et al., 1982, p. 90). Thus, we describe some essential construct relationships identified in the literature to map out our nomological model. Pre-Identified Consumer Activism Personally Motivating Goals Our literature review indicated a heterogenous motivational landscape concerning consumer activists’ personal goals. In Table 1, we summarized these ten overarching goals, providing a brief definition, indicating whether the measurement has been operationalized, and highlighting fundamental studies that had investigated each goal. 37 Table 1. Pre-Identified Conceptual Dimensions of Consumer Activism Motivational Goals Overarching Original Measurement Descriptive Explanation Key Studies Identified Goals Operationalizations The authors propose that consumer activists are motivated to boycott a brand by two main goals: instrumental and non- Instrumental vs. instrumental. "While many appear to have practical ends in Friedman (1991,1999) non-instrumental Klein et al (2002) 1-2 mind, such as labor actions seeking union recognition John and Klein (2003) (expressive) Suhud (2017) (instrumental boycotts), others seem more concerned with Makaren and Jae (2016) motives venting the frustrations of the protesting group (expressive boycotts) (Friedman, 1991, p. 153)." Making a difference is proposed as a subset of Friedman's Friedman (1991,1999) (1991) concept of instrumental motivation. "Instrumental John and Klein (2003) motivation to change the target firm’s behavior and/or to Klein et al. (2004) 3 Make a difference signal to the firm and others the necessity of appropriate Klein et al. (2004) Braunberger and Buckler conduct (Klein et al., 2004, p. 96)" However, the concept (2011) merges distinct constructs, personal goals and efficacy Ettenson and Klein (2005) beliefs, which was also noted by Hoffman (2013). Hoffmann (2011, 2013) This motivational dimension goes beyond changing corporate practices (which is one of the meanings of making a Desire for social Nguyen et al. (2018) 4 difference, see above) to focus on societal changes. - change Micheletti (2003) "Boycotters want to change society in a more positive way (Nguyen et al. 2018, p. 8)." Consumers are increasingly aware of the impact of unrestrained consumption and corporate activity on multiple issues. While others may feel more compelled to delegate such responsibility to others, consumer activities feel Nguyen et al. (2018) obligated to do something because of a perceived moral Micheletti (2003) obligation. “Awareness and self-reflection of this impact 5 Moral obligation - Lindenmeier et al. (2012) imply an acknowledgment that everyday acts by citizens have Smith (1990) the power to potentially restructure society. [This] gives Fernandes (2020) citizens a central role in the responsibility-taking for our common future (Micheletti, 2003, p. 30).” Thus, consumer activists "feel they have a responsibility and moral obligation to commit and ‘do their bit’ (Nguyen et al. 2018, p. 7)." 38 Table 1 (cont’d) Brand punishment is a vital consumer goal in the context of Braunsberger and Buckler product/service failure literature, conceptualized as "actions (2011) that are designed to punish and cause inconvenience to a firm Abosag and Farah (2014) for the damages the customer felt it caused (Grégoire & Ettenson and Klein (2005) 6 Brand punishment Pandey et al. (2021) Fischer, 2008, p.247)." Similarly, in the context of consumer Hoffmann and Müller (2009) activism, consumers are said to "wish to punish the target (p. Hoffmann (2011) 101)" in response to an egregious corporate behavior John and Klein (2003) (Braunsberger & Buckler, 2011). Pandey et al. (2021) Klein et al. (2004) "Boycotting behavior allows a consumer to differentiate Braunberger and Buckler [themselves] from "the crowd," to stand above them, (2011) particularly in terms of defining a personal morality that has Brinkmann (2004) "evolved" beyond hedonistic commercial interests (Kozinest Glazer et al. (2010) Self- & Hendelman, 1998, p. 477)". Klein et al. (2004) have Klein et al. (2004) Hoffmann (2013) 7 enhancement/Social conceptualized self-enhancement goals to avoid guilt for not Ali (2021) John and Klein (2003) recognition acting and social disapproval. Thus, being admired by others Klein et al (2002) and feeling good about oneself is an underlying goal. A Kozinets and Handelman similar goal of social recognition has also been proposed. (1998, 2004) "Boycotters want respect from others and care about the Smith (1990) image they address to them (Nguyen et al. 2018, p. 8)." Nguyen et al. (2018) As posed by Smith (1990) and John and Klein (2003), Nguyen et al. (2018) consumers may also be motivated to engage in collective John and Klein (2003) action to experience feelings such as “doing the right thing” Clean hands/Feel Kozinets and Handelman 8 or “clean hands,” which are likely to lead to positive self- Klein et al (2002) good (1998, 2004) evaluations. Nguyen et al. (2018) have conceptualized a Smith (1990) similar dimension, namely, feel good, as an objective to Klein et al (2002) achieve personal and emotional wellbeing via boycotting. 39 Table 1 (cont’d) Anger expression has been typically investigated as an Klein et al. (2002) emotionally arousing motivation type spurred by knowledge Braunsberger and Buckler of corporate unethical behavior. This is congruent with (2011) Turner's (2007) anger-activism model, where anger energizes Ettenson and Klein (2005) an activist to act. At times, however, the conceptualization of Friedman (1991, 1999) anger expression also points to an underlying goal. For Hoffmann and Müller (2009) example, participants can be motivated to support a collective Klein et al (2002) 9 Anger expression Hoffmann (2011) action as an opportunity to express their anger against an Lindenmeier et al. (2012) John and Klein (2003) emotional target, such as an offending brand (Micheletti, Lindenmeier et al. (2012) 2003). This would also be beneficial to the collective action's Micheletti (2003) likelihood of success. The more a mobilization is seen as a Kozinets and Handelman platform for self-expression, the more likely it is to attract (1998, 2004) greater support to succeed, particularly in social media Bennett (2012) (Bennett, 2012). Makaren and Jae (2016) Call for It has also been noted in a few studies that consumer activists Braunberger and Buckler 10 action/Raise may act to elicit support from others or raise awareness for a - (2011) awareness cause, thereby educating others about the issue. Friedman (1991) Hoffmann (2011) 40 Instrumental vs. Non-instrumental (Expressive) Goals To the best of my knowledge, Friedman (1985, 1991) was one of the first and most influential attempts to identify and classify consumer activists' motives, which was done in the context of boycotting. The author proposes that boycotts can be classified in multiple ways based on their militance escalation level (action considered, action requested, action organized, and action taken), their target (surrogate vs. non-surrogate boycotts), their orientation (media vs. marketplace orientation), and activists’ motivation (expressive or non-instrumental vs. instrumental motives). The classification of boycotts into expressive or instrumental proposes a somewhat dichotomous and orthogonal perspective concerning activists’ goals, i.e., consumers may act against a company because of instrumental or non-instrumental goals. Instrumentally motivated boycotts are defined by participants with a practical and clearly defined goal, such as changing a corporate decision or practice. On the other hand, non-instrumentally motivated boycotters are different because they view activism as a platform for venting out their negative feelings against the company. John and Klein (2003) expanded Friedman’s (1985, 1991) conceptualization. Using economics and psychology approaches, the authors derived quantitative behavioral models to explain boycott participation. The authors propose that the perceived egregiousness of a corporate act, first-hand or vicariously experienced, can spark instrumental and non-instrumental motivations, influencing boycott participation decisions. Under the assumption that of rational decision-making, i.e., homo economicus, instrumentally-motivated activists take action because of 1) an exaggerated perceived impact of their activism, 2) ignorance of the real-world impact of their actions, or 3) some altruistic characteristics. On the other hand, they pose that for non- instrumentally-motivated action, behavioral utility is influenced by psychological factors, such as 41 self-enhancement and self-expression. The concept of instrumental and non-instrumental goals presents a parsimonious way of categorizing consumer activism motivations at the expense of conceptual specificity. As indicated above, they may represent umbrella terms comprising different, more specific goals. For example, Makarem and Jae's (2016) content analyzed n = 1,422 boycott-related tweets and identified four specific instrumental motives: “call for action, awareness and information sharing, making a difference, and offering alternatives or [product] substitutes” (p. 206). Concerning noninstrumental motives, Kozinets and Handelman (1998) found that consumer activists are not only motivated by self-enhancement but also by self-expressive motives. Make a Difference, Desire for Change, and Moral Obligation Consumer activism emerged as a social phenomenon more strongly after World War II, a period of greater economic prosperity that allowed individuals to be concerned with issues beyond fulfilling their more basic private needs (W. L. Bennett, 2012; Buechler, 1995; Diani & Porta, 2006). “People who came of age during World War I or the Great Depression were more likely to emphasize materialist values related to safety and physical well-being, while cohorts who were socialized after World War II were more likely to emphasize postmaterialist concerns related to quality-of-life issues, such as social justice. As generational change occurs, postmaterialist values should become the norm” (Copeland, 2014, p. 263). This may explain why consumers engage in collective action against private entities in support of issues of public interest to make a difference, change social reality, or are imbued with a sense of a moral obligation. Consumers are increasingly aware of the impact of unrestrained consumption on multiple issues, from climate change to unfair trade practices, which are aggravated for certain products and services, namely product politics (Micheletti, 2003). While some may feel more compelled 42 to delegate such responsibility to policymakers, others may be motivated to actively participate in constructing an ideal society. “Awareness and self-reflection of this impact imply an acknowledgment that everyday acts by citizens have the power to potentially restructure society. [This] gives citizens a central role in the responsibility-taking for our common future” (Micheletti, 2003, p. 30). Thus, consumer activists can also be motivated to engage in collective action to cultivate a self-constructed miniature version of their ideal reality (de Moor, 2017; Haenfler et al., 2012). Three concepts identified in the literature seem to point to this overarching goal of changing corporate practices: make a difference (Klein et al., 2004), desire for change (Micheletti, 2003; Nguyen et al., 2018), and moral obligation (Fernandes, 2020; Lindenmeier et al., 2012; Micheletti, 2003; Nguyen et al., 2018; Smith, 1990). However, how these relate to one another and their conceptual boundaries in unclear. For example, to what extent does the goal of changing corporate behaviors differ from a perceived moral obligation to take action? Also, the conceptualization of making a difference (Klein et al., 2004), binds together personal goals and efficacy beliefs, introducing a new layer of conceptual imprecision. Additionally, except Nguyen et al. (2018), most of these concepts have been proposed without a validation step with real- world consumer activists. Thus, as much as researchers may see these as different motivational dimensions, it is unknown to what extent they can be used to tease apart the different motivational goals that may drive consumer activism. Brand Punishment, Self-Enhancement, Recognition, and Clean Hands Literature shows that consumer activists may engage in brand boycotting due to non- instrumental motives (Friedman, 1991, 2002; John & Klein, 2003; Klein et al., 2004; Makarem & Jae, 2016). While for some consumers, collective actions may represent an opportunity to achieve an instrumental goal, such as changing corporate practices, for others, it is a self- 43 expressive platform to vent their frustrations and express their negative feelings, such as anger or outrage, toward a target brand (Friedman, 1991; Kozinets & Handelman, 1998; Makarem & Jae, 2016). Additionally, consumer activists may be drawn to action due to self-enhancement motives (John & Klein, 2003; Klein et al., 2004; Makarem & Jae, 2016). Taking action for a good cause or punishing a transgressing corporation may allow participants to see themselves more favorably by behaving in a manner consistent with whom they think they are (self-concept), would like to be (ideal concept), or how they like to present themselves to others (social concept) (Sirgy, 1982). Furthermore, doing nothing may lead to self-blame and feelings of guilt, representing a threat to the self-concept with negative consequences to self-esteem (Klein et al., 2004). Brand Punishment Brand punishment is a vital consumer goal in the context of product and service failure literature, conceptualized as “actions that are designed to punish and cause inconvenience to a firm for the damages the customer felt it caused” (Grégoire & Fischer, 2008, p.247). This literature, as proposed by Khamitov et al. (2020), focuses on first-hand experienced service failures, such as when consumers’ “online photo albums had accidentally been erased [by a company employee]” (Aaker et al., 2004, p. 7). Similarly, consumer activists may gravitate towards action to punish and threaten the boycott target (John & Klein, 2003; Makarem & Jae, 2016; Yousaf et al., 2021). Consumers activists are said to “wish to punish the target” (Braunsberger & Buckler, 2011, p. 101) in response to egregious corporate behaviors, which are often second-hand experienced transgressions – or vicarious transgressions (Friedman, 1991) such as Nestlé’s contribution to the deforestation of orangutans’ natural habitat because of its palm oil supply chain (Heldman, 2017). In this context, consumer activism equates to individually-enacted behaviors, represented 44 mainly by the spread of negative electronic word of mouth and boycotts (Antonetti & Maklan, 2016; Grappi et al., 2013; Guèvremont & Grohmann, 2018; Romani et al., 2015; Sayin & Gürhan-Canlı, 2015; Trump, 2014; Xie & Bagozzi, 2019). Self-Enhancement and Clean Hands “Being human means being conscious of having a self, and the nature of the self is central to what it means to be human” (Lewis, 1990, as cited by Oyserman, 2001, p. 499). According to Oyserman (2001), the self-concept is a cognitive structure that organizes our self- knowledge, or self-schemas, that shapes how we construct reality, perceive life events, and act. In neurotypical individuals, creating and maintaining a positive perception of the self is a natural need that motivates information processing and behaviors. Thus, individuals are encouraged to act in ways that will lead to positive self-evaluations, i.e., making them feel good about themselves. Consumer activism may be an experience conducive to self-evaluation enhancement for allowing participants “to boost social and personal self-esteem either by associating with a cause or group of people or simply by viewing [themselves] as a moral person” (Klein et al., 2004, p. 97). As posed by Smith (1990) and John and Klein (2003), consumers may also be motivated to engage in collective action to experience feelings such as “doing the right thing” or “clean hands,” which are likely to lead to positive self-evaluations. Therefore, consumer activism may be directed at fulfilling one’s self-enhancement needs. Anger Expression Consumer activists seem to be also motivated to support a collective action as an opportunity to express their anger against an emotional target, such as an offending brand (Micheletti, 2003). The more a mobilization is seen as a platform for self-expression, the more likely it is to attract greater support and succeed, particularly in social media (W. L. Bennett, 45 2012). The importance of self-expressive motives has been documented in the boycott literature (Farah & Newman, 2010; Klein et al., 2004; Kozinets & Handelman, 1998; Makarem & Jae, 2016). Kozinets and Handelman (1998) found through a netnography study that boycotting can be motivated by participants’ need to express their individuality. According to the authors, self- expression can be an outward-facing endeavor, where “expressing selfhood is described as an extrinsic, or other-focused, process by which individuals utilize boycotts to distinguish themselves from other people” (p. 477) or as an inward-facing mechanism, with an emphasis on expressing “their personal values and standards” (p. 477). In a study of boycotting using the Planned Behavior Theory (Ajzen, 1991) as a framework, Farah and Newman (2010) found that boycotting may be motivated by instrumental goals and people’s needs to express their attitudes. Moreover, Makarem and Jae (2016) also identified self-expressive motivated consumer activists’ posts in a qualitative textual analysis of tweets. Call for Action A less explored motivational goal is denoted as a call for action and represents consumer activists’ goal of raising awareness for a cause or eliciting support for a campaign. For example, Friedman (1991) proposed that the early stages of boycott campaigns involve spreading awareness about the issue and promoting the boycott activity (action consideration), and requesting people to step up and join the mobilization (action request). This motivational theme also emerged in computational research studies about consumer activism and seems to be a recurring theme in online petitions (Braunsberger & Buckler, 2011) and social media posts (Makarem & Jae, 2016) from consumer activists. However, it is unclear whether this concept is a motivational goal that energizes consumers to act or if it reflects a rewarding activist strategy informed by a primary personal goal, such as making a difference. 46 Empathy and Solidarity Last, we focus on empathy and solidarity, which are regarded as motivation goals in the broad social activism literature but have received limited attention in the context of consumer activism – although, see Micheletti and Stolle (2012). The literature indicates two ways empathy and solidarity may play a role in consumer activism. First, as an in-group form of solidarity, and second, as a solidarity or empathy toward those victimized by corporate unethical practices and decisions. In-Group Solidarity Individuals can also be motivated to take action to engage in behaviors congruent with their desired social identity derived from group membership. In a study to tease apart behavioral intentions associated with activism vs. radicalism, e.g., terrorism, Moskalenko & Mccauley (2009) found that group identification is an essential motivational factor that propels individuals toward both legal (activism) and non-legal (terrorism) action and that group identification motivational force is strengthened under a situation of a perceived threat to the group. This idea is also implicit in Melucci's (1995) conceptualization of collective identity construction. For new social movement scholars, collective identity is a process through which group members come together to negotiate and define a shared understanding of the group’s goals, who their opponent is, and the best course of action for the movement to succeed. As much as Melucci's (1995) collective identity is a socially-organizing mechanism that enables a coordinated effort to move forward, it connects with Tajfel et al.'s (1979) social identity concept. In externally articulating a collective identity, group members are expected to undergo a group identification procedure by internally assimilating the groups’ prototypical features into their social identity. Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel et al., 1979) proposes that self-concept is partially constructed by internalizing group memberships. Thus, 47 positive social interactions and self-group integration can enhance social identity (Hogg & Reid, 2006). When social identity is not satisfactory, individuals seek ways to enhance it by disassociating themselves from the group (Tajfel et al., 1979). Consequently, consumer activism participation can be facilitated by creating a positive social identity that differentiates in-group (activists) from out-group members, sometimes regarded as the indifferent majority (Kozinets & Handelman, 1998). For instance, for highly committed consumer activists, the offending brand is not the only opponent. Kozinets and Handelman (2004) identified that mainstream consumers lacking awareness of their consumer decisions beyond their personal needs are viewed as complicit to the corporate elite and considered “couch potatoes, selfish, lazy, SUV-driving hedonists” (p. 700). Between-Group Solidarity and Empathy Activism is also spurred by solidarity and empathy toward those victimized or otherwise affected by society’s different systems of injustice. Solidarity has been a critical concept in the conceptualization of social movements: “Participation often emerges out of a sense of solidarity” (Hunt & Benford, 2004, p. 439). As conceptualized by Neufeld et al., (2019), solidarity in the context of a social or political movement emerges from an allyship or connection established with the victimized group. Cultural studies have closely examined this, showing the importance of solidarity formation and empathy in multiple activism contexts (Hunt & Benford, 2004; Kim, 2021; Neufeld et al., 2019; Rahbari, 2021; Routledge et al., 2007). For example, Kim (2021) identifies solidarity formation as a crucial component that has sustained queer activism in South Korea for decades. The author argues that between-group solidarity emerges upon the realization that we share a common source of pain created by different systems of oppression. Also, Rahbari (2021) identified transnational digital solidarity in the World Hijab Day, a campaign designed to combat 48 discrimination against Muslim women, as a motivational force among Muslim and non-Muslim participants. These studies illustrate that between-group solidarity and empathy are essential drivers of global activism (Anderl, 2022; Routledge et al., 2007). Global activism relies on mutual solidarity, which allows individuals to see themselves as part of an imagined network sharing the same struggles (Anderl, 2022; Routledge et al., 2007), which can be reinforced through cultural productions, such as movies, literature, and other artistic productions, portraying the suffering of those who are far away, thereby creating empathy and energizing people to engage in distant issue activism (Bernard, 2017). In the context of consumer activism, the concept has also gained attention in the study of boycotts. People who have greater empathy, as a personality trait, are more likely to engage in negative behaviors against the brand, such as negative eWOM, complaints, and boycotts, upon knowledge of corporate irresponsible behaviors (Xie & Bagozzi, 2019) and engage in positive behaviors toward the brand, such as positive eWOM and brand recommendation, upon knowledge of corporate responsible behavior (Xie et al., 2019). Extant Operationalizations Consumer Activism Personally Motivating Goals A couple of studies proposed measurement operationalizations related to motivational goals of consumer activism. However, most measurements are conceptualized as a uni- (Ali, 2021) or a bi-dimensional (Klein et al., 2002, 2004; Suhud et al., 2017) motivational construct. As per the literature reviewed above, it is plausible to assume that consumer activism motivation is a multidimensional construct, a conceptual complexity not captured by extant measures. For instance, in the context of pro-environmental boycotts, Nguyen et al. (2018) have qualitatively detected five main values and thirteen desirable consequences that motivate boycotters. 49 Additionally, some studies focused on operationalizing other relevant motivational constructs, such as emotional arousal (Grappi et al., 2013; Romani et al., 2015) or agency beliefs (Klein et al., 2004; Sen et al., 2001). However, in some cases, these concepts have been intertwined with personal goals in their operationalizations, which begs for revision. Per MST typology (Ford, 1992), personal goals, emotional arousal, and agency beliefs are distinct motivational constructs. Thus, they should be conceptualized and measured separately and investigated as part of a larger nomological motivational model in the context of consumer activism. To my knowledge, a nomological framework to examine the relationship across different consumer activism motivational concepts has not been proposed nor tested. It is also important to acknowledge that most studies about consumer activism motivations have mainly focused on boycotting. This is understandable, given that boycotting is one of the most prevalent behaviors in consumer activism (see Chapter 1). However, for this reason, it is unclear to what extent these fully capture consumer activists’ personal goals in relation to other activist-like behaviors. Of all measures identified, Klein et al., (2004) seems to be the most popular, with 1,049 citations on Google Scholar to date. Thus, we carefully review their measurement work. Next, we briefly review Pandey et al.'s (2021) measurement scale because it represents a more recent effort in operationalizing consumer activism motivational goals as a multidimensional construct. Klein et al. (2004) conceptualized two main motivational goals, namely, make a difference, and self-enhancement, which may be insufficient to quantitatively capture the broad range of motivations reported in the literature. The make a difference dimension was conceptualized as a motivation to change the target firm’s behavior framed as an agency or efficacy belief. Three measurement items were used – “everyone should take part in the boycott 50 because every contribution, no matter how small, is important;” “boycotts are an effective means to make a company change its actions;” and “by boycotting I can help change [business’s] decision,” with a .78 Cronbach’s reliability coefficient. Self-enhancement was measured through four survey items. The reliability coefficient of .73 for self-enhancement is considerably below the .80 reliability threshold. This may indicate some problems of internal consistency since almost 30 percent of the observed variance is unrelated to the true variance under the assumption of true scores equivalence with uncorrelated error terms (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Of all four items, the first three tap into feelings of guilt, discomfort, and subjective norms, thus posing a problem of content validity since only the fourth one seems to represent self-enhancement conceptually, “I will feel better about myself if I boycott [Brand].” Not surprisingly, while the first three items are estimated to indicate the same underlying latent variable based on factor loadings, the fourth item loads high on two factors (.648 for self-enhancement and .466 for making a difference). Thus, indicating that together, the survey measures might not be measuring self-enhancement as intended. In addition to the issues discussed above, some best practices in scale development were not observed (Carpenter, 2018; Churchill, 1979; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). The authors do not report exploring the construct domain by assessing possible motivational dimensions and survey items. Nor do they undergo a scale purification or refinement task. These initial steps would be essential to determine the breadth of consumer activism motivations measure (Carpenter, 2018). In addition, factors were assumed to be orthogonal without a justification or statistical test. This implies that the two motivational dimensions are uncorrelated, an assumption that often does not find support in the social sciences literature (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Last, current scale development practices recommend measurement scales to be tested on an 51 independent sample via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the hypothesized latent structure and model fit formally. This last methodological procedure was also not observed. Next, we review Pandey et al.'s (2021) measurement scale. The final scale comprises six factors, three of which are indicated by two items only, which is statistically problematic (Kline, 2015; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Besides some potential methodological issues, such as the use of an orthogonal rotation and the non-disclosure of cross-loadings, the scale suffers from important content validity issues, which leads to an unclear understanding of what is being measured. For example, factor one is named “socio political,” and of the two items used to indicate this latent construct, one of them seem to represent some form of efficacy belief not related to any specific social or political construct: “I do not boycott products because I see it does not have an effect.” Similar issues were detected across all six factors. Thus, rendering the scale’s content validity highly questionable. Jointly, this literature review demonstrates that consumer activism can be conceptualized as a multi-dimensional construct, which is not captured by extant measures. Equally importantly, it is unclear what personal goals might motivate consumers to act since no systematic effort has been devoted to identifying them, with a few exceptions, such as Nguyen et al. (2018). This warrants an original scale development work focused on measuring consumer activism personal goals as motivational drivers. Nomological Model of Consumer Activism Motivations The proposed scale focuses on one type of motivation, personal goals. Personal goals are considered part of a motivational system and are influenced by other motivational constructs: emotional arousal and efficacy beliefs (Ford, 1992). The interplay across these constructs is also expected in the context of consumer activism. However, this has yet to be formally 52 conceptualized and tested. Thus, constructing this nomological framework requires an assembling effort to bring together different consumer activism models proposed in the literature. Klein et al.'s (2004) Awareness Egregious Boycott (AEB) model offers a widely accepted foundation to construct a nomological model of consumer activism motivations. The AEB model was initially developed with boycotting behavior in mind and proposes a funneled pathway from awareness to action. This model can be conceptually extended to other forms of consumer activism, as the anteceding roles of awareness and egregiousness can be logically extended to other activist-like behaviors. First, consumers need to become aware of a brand transgression. Upon awareness, cognitive appraisal of the incident should result in negative perceptions that will lead to the disapproval of the corporate conduct and the assessment of the transgression as an egregious behavior. Last, some consumers may decide to act to hold the corporation accountable. The likelihood of boycotting is expected to be influenced by efficacy beliefs associated with “making a difference” and “self-enhancement” motivational goals. Therefore, Klein et al.'s (2004) AEB model proposes that two motivational constructs, personal goals, and agency beliefs, interact in creating activist-like behavior. The role of efficacy beliefs or perceived efficacy in influencing consumer activism has also been demonstrated in other studies (Albrecht, Campbell, et al., 2013; Ettenson & Klein, 2005; Ji & Kim, 2020; Lee, 2010; Sen et al., 2001). Efficacy beliefs function as moderating construct that influences behavioral enactment. As posed by Bandura (2000), “efficacy beliefs influence whether people think erratically or strategically, optimistically or pessimistically (p. 75).” In the context of collective action, perceived collective efficacy may be a more relevant construct. Perceived collective efficacy is defined as “people’s shared beliefs in their collective 53 power to produce desired results” (Bandura, 2000, p. 75), and has been termed consumer collective efficacy (Ji & Kim, 2020; Lee, 2010) in the context of consumer activism. The motivational role of emotional arousal was also examined by researchers (Grappi et al., 2013; John & Klein, 2003; Romani et al., 2015), and its interplay with efficacy beliefs theorized in Turner's (2007) anger-activism model. John and Klein (2003) suggest that “participation in a boycott may simply be an expression of anger or outrage at the present or past acts of the producer. This, in principle, implies neither a desire to change the behavior of the producer, nor a wish that others participate” (p. 1203). Additionally, negative, arousing feelings against the violating brand have been shown to increase the likelihood of consumer activism via anger, contempt, and disgust (CAD), also jointly known as brand hate (Grappi et al., 2013; Romani et al., 2015). The anger-activism model (Turner, 2007) professes a relationship between perceived efficacy and anger, a negatively arousing emotion. The model proposes four quadrants defined by high vs. low efficacy on one axis and high vs. low levels of anger on the other. The first quadrant identifies the disinterested group with low levels of efficacy and anger, who may have a positive predisposition toward an issue. However, this predisposition is not transferred to action due to their low levels of agency belief and emotional arousal. In the second quadrant falls the angry group, with higher levels of anger but a reduced belief that there is anything they can do to change the problem. The third quadrant comprises those who feel empowered with higher levels of efficacy. However, their intent to act is somewhat limited because of low emotional arousal. Last, the fourth quadrant identifies the activist group. Individuals with high levels of efficacy and anger are expected to engage in activist-like behaviors that require more effort and commitment. Thus, this model convincingly supports the interplay of emotional arousal and collective 54 consumer efficacy in spurring consumer activism. The Motivational Role of Involvement As Ford (1992) proposed, personal goals are not fixed, and their prioritization can be shuffled not only by agency beliefs and emotional arousal but also by situational or intrinsic forces. One of these forces is ego-involvement, which can be created from intrinsic and situational sources of personal relevance (ISPR and SSPR, respectively) (Celsi & Olson, 1988). ISPR creates involvement based on knowledge stored in long-term memory, connecting a particular object with personally relevant goals, values, and self-identity. Therefore, ISPR is a more enduring source of involvement because it arises from a perceived connection between the object and self-relevant consequences. On the other hand, SSPR creates situational involvement where contextual cues activate self-relevant knowledge. For example, in the context of consumer behavior, “sales promotions such as rebates, coupons, and price reductions create contingencies in consumers’ decision environments that might activate important personally relevant goals and values such as ‘save money’ […] Felt involvement created by SSPR declines when the self- relevant goal or value in that situation is achieved” (Celsi & Olson, 1988, p. 212). By the same token, consumer activism involvement with an issue violated by a company is expected to influence the relevance or importance of their consumer activism personal goals. Issue involvement is a motivational state spurred by feelings of personal relevance concerning a target issue (Albrecht, Campbell, et al., 2013; O’Cass & Griffin, 2006), which conforms with the concept of ISPR. The literature on consumer activism suggests that issue involvement (Albrecht, Backhaus, et al., 2013; O’Cass & Griffin, 2006) is an antecedent of consumer activism participation intention. Therefore, issue involvement seems to be a relevant nomological construct for validating the proposed scale. 55 CHAPTER FIVE: SCALE DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGICAL OVERVIEW In the social sciences, scales are typically utilized to measure constructs that cannot be directly observed (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Constructs are indispensable for scientific research because they represent the building blocks of theories (Suddaby, 2010). Theory, in this dissertation, is defined as a system of constructs that relate to each other through propositions that follow strict rules of logic (Suddaby, 2010; Wacker, 2008). Scales represent a crucial tool for knowledge testing and accumulation because they enable researchers to measure unobservable constructs and empirically test associative or causal claims (theoretical propositions) derived from theory (DeVellis, 2012; Reynolds, 1971; Suddaby, 2010; Wacker, 2004; Zaltman et al., 1982). Given the central role that scales play in the empirical testing of theoretical propositions, the scale development process should observe certain methodological principles. These methodological principles are vital for three main reasons: 1) to enable scale developers to minimize measurement error, 2) to ensure that the measurement corresponds to the intended construct, and 3) to increase users’ confidence in the scale’s measurement properties (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). This chapter provides an overview of such methodological steps to enable readers to understand the methodological logic connecting the three studies conducted in this dissertation. Construct definition is the first step in scale development (Carpenter, 2018; Churchill, 1979; Clark & Watson, 1995; DeVellis, 2012; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988, 1988; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). This step entails a comprehensive literature review focused on clarifying the construct’s meaning and dimensionality. In addition, the literature review should investigate the theoretical relationship between the construct of interest and other constructs of relevance that are part of a nomological framework (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998). These steps were 56 accomplished in the previous chapters with the proposal of a conceptual definition of consumer activism (Chapter 2), the conceptual identification of personal goals as the motivational concept of interest for scale development (Chapter 3), a literature review concerning the conceptual dimensions of consumer activism motivations (Chapter 4), and the examination of critical theoretical frameworks to propose a nomological model (Chapter 4). It is recommended that researchers engage in qualitative research to further examine the construct’s meaning, breadth, and dimensionality (Carpenter, 2018; Churchill, 1979; DeVellis, 2012). This is especially relevant in the domain of consumer activism motivations because prior scale development efforts did not include a qualitative assessment to examine consumer activism motivations from the perspective of the consumer activist. Thus, a qualitative step is warranted to enrich the construct definition and dimensionality. This is accomplished in Study 1 (Chapter 6) through in-depth interviews with consumer activists (Study 1 - Phase 1), followed by a panel discussion with experts (Study 1 - Phase 2). In addition, cognitive interviews were conducted (Study 1 - Phase 3) to pretest the initial pool of measurement items created based on the reviewed literature, in-depth interviews, and panel discussion with experts. Once an initial pool of measurement items is created, scale developers should quantitatively investigate the latent structure of the construct and the internal consistency of items (Carpenter, 2018; Churchill, 1979; Clark & Watson, 1995; DeVellis, 2012; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). This is accomplished in Study 2 mainly through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the inspection of Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients (Fabrigar et al., 1999; Kline, 2013; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). The retained measurement items and the hypothesized latent structure should be statistically confirmed through a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (Bagozzi & Foxall, 1996; 57 Churchill, 1979; DeVellis, 2012; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; Kline, 2013; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). This is accomplished in Study 3, which relies on a new sample to confirm the results from Study 2. In addition, the retained solution should be examined for different forms of validity (Bagozzi & Foxall, 1996; Churchill, 1979; Clark & Watson, 1995; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). Study 3 validates the retained measurement scale across four types of validity: convergent, discriminant, nomological, and predictive. 58 CHAPTER SIX: STUDY 1 – QUALITATIVE INVESTIGATION OF CONCEPTUAL BREADTH AND DIMENSIONALITY AND INITIAL GENERATION OF MEASUREMENT ITEMS Upon a comprehensive literature review to inform construct definition (Chapters 2 and 3) and construct dimensionality (Chapter 4), it is recommended that researchers engage in a qualitative investigation to confirm, adjust, and/or amplify construct conceptualization (Bagozzi & Foxall, 1996; Carpenter, 2018; Churchill, 1979; Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998; Ohanian, 1990; Zaichkowsky, 1985). This qualitative assessment is often accomplished through in-depth interviews or focus groups with participants, which can be combined with other methods, such as experts consultation and survey pre-testing (Carpenter, 2018; Churchill, 1979; Clark & Watson, 1995; DeVellis, 2012; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). The qualitative assessment in scale development is sometimes overlooked by communication scholars (Carpenter, 2018). Additionally, this step was neither performed, or nor reported, in the examined studies that proposed other measures of consumer activism motivations (Klein et al., 2004; Pandey et al., 2021; Suhud et al., 2017). Overlooking this step can have negative implications for construct validity because “it is very common that participants will reveal additional dimensions critical to the meaning of the construct based on results stemming from qualitative research efforts” (Carpenter, 2018, p. 33). Therefore, Study 1 qualitative examines personal goals as a motivational component of consumer activism. The primary aims of Study 1 are threefold: Gain richness in meaning concerning goals previously proposed in the literature, potentially detect new goals not previously conceptualized, and define conceptual boundaries and interrelationships across goals. An underlying premise of scale development is that the measurement items should represent the breadth of the concept being measured (Carpenter, 2018; Churchill, 1979; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Thus, as a result of this qualitative examination, Study 1 will enable the 59 generation of measurement items with greater content validity. To achieve this, Study 1 was implemented in three phases. In Phase 1, online in-depth online interviews with consumer activists were conducted. In Phase 2, experts were invited to join an online panel and review the initial measurement items in light of Phase 1’s findings. Last, in Phase 3, a questionnaire pretesting was conducted, via cognitive interviewing technique, to detect and correct issues related to participants’ ability to comprehend, retrieve information, and answer the measurement items optimally. Phase 1: Consumer Activists' In-Depth Interviews Phase 1 aims to allow the researcher to gain insight into consumer activists' real-world experiences and perceptions concerning their past activist-like behaviors (Ryan et al., 2009). By disclosing their perceptions and past experiences related to activism, consumer activists may substantially contribute to refining extant understanding of motivational goals beyond what has been documented in the literature. Below, the methods and results obtained in this phase are described. Last, the findings are discussed in relation to the literature reviewed in earlier chapters. Methods Sample Recruitment and Size Participants were recruited via Prolific, also known as Prolific Academic, an online research recruiting platform for human participants. The platform offers a pre-screened panel of subjects constantly monitored to promote higher data quality relative to other platforms, such as MTurk (Peer et al., 2017). A total of 11 participants were successfully interviewed. Sample size for qualitative studies should 1) strive to represent the various experiences and perceptions relative to the investigated construct and 2) aim to achieve saturation or information redundancy across respondents (Chesebro & Borisoff, 2007; Reid & Gough, 2000; Thomas & Pollio, 2001). 60 Researchers have suggested that qualitative interview studies should have a minimum of six complete interviews and increase this number to ten if the reported experiences and perceptions in the initial six interviews did not achieve information redundancy (Thomas & Pollio, 2001). As detailed in the next section, redundancy was achieved in around six interviews. Thus, our sample size is acceptable. All participants were at least 18 years old, English speakers, and currently located in the US. Additionally, participants were recruited based on their prior engagement with consumer activist-like behaviors in the last 24 months. These behaviors were identified in the literature (Baek, 2010; Barry et al., 2022; Corning & Myers, 2002; de Zúñiga et al., 2014; Forno & Ceccarini, 2006; Grappi et al., 2013; Heldman, 2017; Moskalenko & Mccauley, 2009; Romani et al., 2015; Stolle et al., 2005) and structured to represent lower and higher levels of activist commitment (Barry et al., 2022; Cabrera et al., 2017; Corning & Myers, 2002; Heldman, 2017; Hollenbeck & Zinkhan, 2006; Kristofferson et al., 2014; Morozov, 2009; Moskalenko & Mccauley, 2009). This is important because activism behaviors are likely to vary in energy, time, effort, planning, commitment, and risk and may represent distinct personal motivations to act. These behaviors are presented in Table 2. Still, because activism repertoire is not fixed (Tilly, 1978), participants were allowed to indicate other non-listed activist-like behaviors they used. Eligible participants were directed to a link to schedule a one-hour interview time with the researcher. To be able to schedule the interview, participants had to review and accept the informed consent form. Oral consent was also obtained at the beginning of the interview. Upon successful completion of the interview, participants received the equivalent of 20 British pounds in US dollars. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for analysis. 61 Table 2. Pre-Identified Consumer Activism Behaviors Relatively Lower Commitment 1. Signed a petition against a company 2. Wrote a social media post against a company 3. Shared content on social media against a company 4. Donated money to an organization that could take action against a company 5. Encouraged other people to take action against a company 6. Boycotted (stop purchasing from) a company Relatively Higher Commitment 7. Picketed or participated in a protest against a company 8. Protested against a company using physical materials, such as t-shirts, hats, bumper stickers or yard signs 9. Wrote a letter to or called my government representative asking for action against a company. 10. Wrote a blog post against a company 11. Joined organization(s) or group(s) against a company 12. Joined online/social media group(s) against a company Interviewing Technique Interviews were conducted online, which can increase perceived privacy and lower respondents’ burden (Couper, 2011; Groves et al., 2009). Zoom Meetings (2023) was chosen as the online platform for its security features, connection stability, and automatic meeting transcription. Participants received a passcode to enter a secure virtual meeting room with the interviewer. Upon oral consent, the transcription function was activated, and the interview began. The semi-structured interviewing technique was employed (Ryan et al., 2009) to allow 1) participants to respond more naturally and 2) the interviewer to follow the participants’ lead and gently explore unexpected themes naturally introduced during the interview. The interview objectives below informed the interview guide creation utilized in Phase 1: 1. How do consumer activists understand and describe activism and consumer activism? 2. What activist-like behaviors have they employed in the past? 3. What were the salient issues and brands that prompted their activist behaviors? 4. What were the motivational goals for engaging in consumer activism? 5. What language do consumer activists use to talk about their motivational goals? 62 The interview guide structure was informed by methodological best practices for scale development (Carpenter, 2018). The interview started with broader questions about activism in general. Participants were asked to provide examples of activism they were aware and describe the term using their own words. This created a smooth segue for the next section of the interview, in which participants described the most memorable situation in which they took a stand against a company because of their unethical business practices or controversial business decisions, i.e., the most memorable episode of consumer activism they had participated. In this section, the interviewer employed pre-defined probes to create a comprehensive profile of the situation, including the identification of the violating company, the issue to which the incident was connected, activist-like behaviors the participant employed, and the action timeline. Once enough details were collected about the consumer activism episode, the researcher explored, in depth, the different personal goals and adjacent motivational constructs, such as emotional arousal and efficacy beliefs, that motivated participants to take action. This constituted the longer portion of the interview. Last, participants were asked to reflect on the meaning of consumer activism and whether they considered themselves to be consumer activists. Results Demographic and Psychographic Sample Characteristics Interviews lasted about 46 minutes, on average (SD = 7.6 minutes). Participants were demographically diverse, as presented in Table 3, with an equal mix of males and females (N = 5 each) and one transgender male with a sample mean age of 34.09 years (SD = 5.38). White participants were the majority (N = 7), followed by Black individuals (N=2), and then one Native American and an Asian person. Concerning educational attainment, the largest groups included those with undergraduate degree (N = 4), followed by high school diploma (N=3) and graduate degree (N=3). One participant had a technical or community college degree. Participants family 63 income ranged from less than $60,000 (N=5) to less than $100,000 (N=2), to less than $150,000 (N=1), to $150,000 or above (N=3). 64 Table 3. Participants’ Demographics and Activism Characteristics Race/ Political Personal Main Violating ID* Gender Age Education Income Behaviors Issues Ethnicity Leaning Goals Brands 1* Male 35 Asian High $100K to Extremely WOMb; Gender gap; abortion; BP; BR; 7th Generation: school 149,999 conservative boycotta. LGBTQ+ rights; CD; VS. Promotion of diploma racism; gun policy; progressive views political division. on social media. 2 Female 31 White High $10K – Liberal SM sharingb; Rich-poor gap; gender BR; CD; Nestlé: Bad school 59,999 petitionc; gap; abortion; climate VS. business practices, diploma boycotta. change; environmental exploitation of the issues; health care; poor. LGBTQ+ rights; racism; gun policy; workers’ rights. 3* Female 27 White Undergrad. $10K – Extremely WOMc; Rich-poor gap; gender BP; CD; Chick Fill-A: Anti- degree 59,999 liberal boycotta. gap; abortion; climate NS; VS. LGBTQ+ support. change; environmental Hobby Lobby: Pro- issues; health care; Life support. LGBTQ+ rights; racism; gun policy; veganism. 4* Male 40 White Undergrad. $60K – Liberal SM postingc; Rich-poor gap; gender BP; BR; Nestlé: degree 99,999 SM sharingc; gap; abortion; climate CD; NS; Exploitation of donation; change; environmental VS. water resources WOMc; issues; health care; and unethical petitionc; LGBTQ+ rights; business in Africa boycotta. racism; gun policy; (infant formula). housing crisis; stock Kellogg’s and market manipulation; Starbucks: workers’ rights Violation of worker’s rights. 65 Table 3 (cont’d) 5* Trans. 34 White High school $10K – Slightly Petitionc; SM Rich-poor gap; BP; BR; Chick Fill-A: Anti- male diploma 59,999 liberal sharingc; WOMb; abortion; climate CD; NS; LGBTQ+ support. boycotta; joined change; environmental VS. Nestlé: AB social media issues; health care; Exploitation of groupsb. LGBTQ+ rights; gun water resources policy; housing crisis; and unethical stock market business in Africa manipulation (infant formula). 6 Female 31 Black Undergrad. $10K to Liberal SM sharingd; Rich-poor gap; gender BP; BR; Starbucks: Anti- degree 59,999 petitiond; boycott. gap; abortion; climate NS; VS. BLM practices change; health care; connected to racism; gun policy; workers abuse. animal rights; Home Depot: education. Political supporter of Trump. 7* Male 29 White Technical/ $60K- Slightly SM sharingd; Rich-poor gap; gender BP; BR; Barilla and Chick Community $99,999 liberal donationd; WOMd; gap; abortion; climate CD; NS; Fill-A: Anti- college boycotta, change; environmental VS. LGBTQ+ support. protesting. issues; health care; Stop and Shop: LGBTQ+ rights; Violation of racism; gun policy; worker’s rights. workers’ rights. 8 Male 38 White Graduate More Moderate WOM; boycotta. Climate change; health BP; BR; Ben & Jerry’s: degree than care; police and CD; NS; Anti-law $149K military issues. VS. enforcement support. 9 Female 39 Black Graduate $10K to Liberal SM posting; SM Rich-poor gap; gender BP; BR; Home Depot and degree 59,999 sharingc; donation; gap; abortion; climate NS; VS. Lowes: Political WOMb; boycotta; change; environmental supporters of physical materials, issues; health care; Trump. blog postingc; LGBTQ+ rights; BP Oil: Disregard joined AB groupsb; racism; gun policy; for the joined AB social animal rights; environment and media groupsb. education. local communities. 66 Table 3 (cont’d) 10* Female 44 White Graduate More than Extremely Petitionc; Rich-poor gap; gender BP; BR; My Pillow and degree $149K liberal WOMb; boycotta; gap; abortion; climate CD; NS; Goya: Anti- contacted change; environmental VS. LGBTQ+ support. companies issues; health care; NBC: Promotion directlyd. LGBTQ+ rights; of hate speech in a racism; gun policy. political ad. 11* Male 27 Native Undergrad. More than Liberal Donationc; Rich-poor gap; gender BR; CD; Goya: Political American degree $149K WOMc; boycotta; gap; abortion; climate NS; VS. supporter of physical change; environmental Trump. materialsc. issues; health care; General Mills, LGBTQ+ rights; Amazon, and racism; gun policy; Starbucks: worker’s rights. Violation of worker’s rights. Note. * Participants see themselves as consumer activist to some extent. aOngoing. bLess than 6 months. cLess than 12 months. dLess than 24 months. Behavioral abbreviations: WOM = word of mouth; SM = social media. Goals abbreviations: AB = anti-brand; BP = brand punishment; BR = business reformation; CD = consumer duty; NS = network solidarity; VS = virtuous self. 67 Psychographically, our sample skews politically liberal (N=9) but also represents moderates (N = 1) and conservatives (N = 1). Participants revealed to care about multiple issues. Moreover, they mentioned having engaged in several activist-like behaviors and taken action against different brands. Regarding self-relevant issues, the most cited ones include multiple forms of social injustices (N = 10), such as rich-poor and gender disparities, racism, and workers’ rights. In addition, other thematic issues emerged, including minority rights (N = 10), such as abortion and LGBTQ+ rights, and public policy topics (N = 11), for example, abortion, gun policy, and healthcare. Additionally, most participants reported caring about climate change and environmental issues (N = 10), which included animal rights and veganism (N = 2). Concerning consumer activism behaviors, behavioral recency was higher than expected, with most participants (N=10) currently boycotting at least one brand and many of those (N = 8) engaged in at least another form of activism in the past 12 months. Participants also reported to have taken action against 17 brands for multiple reasons. Three brands appear on top as most frequently targeted: Nestlé (N=3), Starbucks (N=3), and Chick Fill-A (N=3). Nestlé’s violation was associated with the exploitation of consumers in poverty-stricken areas, which is related to the infamous infant formula marketing campaign case in Africa and the exploitation of Earth’s natural water resources. Starbucks’ transgressions relate to different forms of employee abuse, from fighting against unionization to not letting workers wear Black Lives Matter (BLM) pins at work during the 2020 BLM protests. Last, Chick Fill-A’s unethical behavior concerned the company’s vocal and financial support for anti-LGBTQ+ public policies. Activism Meanings Participants shared a common overarching understanding that activism entails some form of action as an expression against the current state of affairs or even an attempt to advocate for and promote change. Activism seems to emerge from a mismatch or a cognitive clash between 68 activists’ internalized ideal world, which is deeply connected with their moral beliefs, and the perception of the external reality. This mismatch arises when an external situation is perceived to be unethical, inappropriate, or simply wrong, as exemplified below: “[Activism is] taking a stand against things that you find are inappropriate or wrong. Standing up for what you believe in” – IW2 “[It] means being active to uphold sort of morals that you deem are necessary or correct.” – IW9 “It's kind of just about shaking up the system and the existing power structures.” – IW11 However, the mere discrepancy between this internalized ideal world and the external reality is not enough to spur action. The internal-external world representation gap must be connected to a self-relevant issue or cause about which the activist is passionate. Thus, consumers are more likely to act when an issue is a source of intrinsic personal relevance. Intrinsic source of personal self-relevance (ISPR) represents long-term memory knowledge about the centrality of an object (in this case, the issue) to self-relevant goals or consequences (Celsi & Olson, 1988). This is represented in the following interview quote: “It’s just getting involved in causes that you're passionate about. [It’s] actively doing something to support a cause you are passionate about.” – IW4 Additionally, activism is perceived as a somewhat public activity to the extent which the activist behavior is outward facing. As expressed by participants, the public nature of activism reflects the idea that activism should strive to inform others and create awareness of an issue- related problem. “I would say advocating for what you believe in, and [in] a somewhat public, in a more public nature. I think [to] some extent [activism] is public. I guess. I'm not sure how public it 69 needs to be.” – IW3 “[Activism] is having belief in something and having enough belief in something to act upon it, you know. But there's a difference between just acting upon it and something you would call activism. I guess, I would define activism as really just caring for a cause and taking action to represent not just in between your buddy, or your parents or whatever, but that's something that's facing outwards. [That] people are going to see it, but […] not […] for public recognition.” – IW7 Congruent with past studies (de Zúñiga et al., 2014; Micheletti & Stolle, 2012b), it is also noteworthy that, for some, the boundaries between activism and other forms of civic or political participation are murky. This suggests that, for some, activism may be a form of active citizenship – or the other way around. This is evident in the excerpt below: “Another form of activism is just going to your local town hall meetings, […] school board meetings, and things of that nature.” – IW4 Consumer Activism Meanings In general, consumer activism is seen as a subset of activism. It is common for participants to equate, at first, consumer activism to the idea of “voting with your wallet.” In that, proposed definitions revolved primarily around consumers’ role in the marketplace and their spending decisions, where action can be exercised by withholding or constraining consumption from selected companies via boycotts. In addition, participants often expressed that boycotting is an easy task requiring low levels of commitment and effort, similar to Barry et al.'s (2022) findings. Moreover, lower-commitment activist-like behavior can sometimes function as an entry door for more complex activists behaviors, congruent with the conveyor-belt hypothesis (Kristofferson et al., 2014; Moskalenko & Mccauley, 2009), where lower-commitment activism is conducive to more effortful behaviors. 70 “Consumer activism would be a subset of activism.” – IW8 “I think it means as a consumer… using your money to support causes…” – IW3 “Every single American is a consumer in some form or fashion. And to consume is to talk with your wallet. And the activism that we engage in as consumers is where we spend our money. And that's consumer activism, it is deciding where your dollars are going to go.” – IW4 “At the base level, it would be boycotting, which is something everyone can do. It requires no networking, no nothing. And then you're gonna get more involved in consumer activism, which would be joining groups, joining unions, striking, and then, at the very high end, that would be going into like politics and the forming of action groups, I guess, if you have the money.” – IW11 Although boycotting is a top-of-mind form of consumer activism, participants also acknowledged the plurality of behaviors that exist, from social media actions to more centrally- organized, real-world forms of actions, such as protesting or creating advocacy groups. Interestingly, we did not detect any negative, judgmental statements against any form of action, regardless of whether some could be regarded as less effortful behaviors. Instead, activists view different forms of action as important and relevant in their own right. “[…] not one of them [in reference to distinct behaviors] is better than the other. You kind of need all of them to make, you know, to make it go round, you know. There isn't necessarily better than others, but some people are better at some activism than others. Like me, social media [yuck!], trying to organize a whole group of people [yuck!] but, like, boycotting a product? Absolutely, dude!” – IW7 As much as consumer activism is perceived as a subset of more general forms of activism, participants propose that consumer activism is more uniquely characterized by the 71 directionality of actions against companies and the inclusion of more private forms of action. Thus, in comparison to other forms of activism, consumer activism can be differentiated because 1) it is directed against companies and 2) it can be more easily exercised via private behaviors. This supports our conceptualization of consumer activism (see Chapter 2) as a form of activism that target private business and that it is not necessarily demonstrated exclusively through public actions. Concerning the first differentiating characteristic, participants unanimously defined consumer activism as actions that oppose certain companies or business practices, using terms such as pressuring companies, sticking up or standing up against companies, or holding companies accountable. This is also illustrated in the excerpts below: “[Consumer activism] takes issues directly to companies, pressures them… in a certain direction.” – IW1 “[Consumer activism is] holding companies accountable for doing the wrong thing” – IW2 “[Consumer activism is] Action… for wrongdoings… produced by a company.” – IW6 “[Consumer activism] can be activism around products and the way they're produced, the way they're used… that plugs into policy outcomes and general sort of ethical or moral positions that you have and taking action to create incentives we talked about… Either positive or negative incentives to producers to try to make choices that align with your beliefs.” – IW8 It is also essential to acknowledge that some participants mentioned ethical consumption and buycotting as affirmative forms of consumer activism. In this sense, consumers can use their purchasing power to reward businesses and, in turn, advance or promote a self-relevant issue. In that, consumer activism can include anti-brand actions, which are the focus of this research 72 work, and pro-brand behaviors, as illustrated below: “I feel like often [consumer activism] is not supporting, in the negative [way]. Not using your money to support organizations who are advancing causes or have problematic practices. […] I think a lot of like avoiding bad companies. But… to some extent they can also be supporting good companies.” – IW3 The second differentiating characteristic concerns the more private-facing nature of consumer activism. When defining consumer activism, some consumers realized that certain forms of action, in particular boycotting, can emerge from a private decision that is not necessarily visible to others and can, therefore, be more inward than outward facing. More private forms of action are deemed relevant because they represent targeted actions against a violating company that can be more easily performed and still create some impact on the companies’ bottom line or market share. “It is forward-facing, but me boycotting a company isn't necessarily forward-facing in the sense that everybody's gonna know about it. You're more trying to target, like this company's bottom and their wallet, or you're trying to affect this company as like a thing. It's more targeted. Consumer activism is a targeted form of activism because you aren't just spreading awareness, you're actually trying to change something, you're trying to… You're trying to demonstrate. You're trying to demonstrate something. Using your wallet…” – IW7 “It can be ‘out there’ I support this thing, or it can be ‘I'm going to try to sort of oppose these groups or people or ideas that I don't like.’” – IW8 Our analysis suggests that more public forms of action are important, from the activists’ perspective, because they create public awareness, influence public opinion, and incite others into action: 73 “It’s making sure that you know it, my friends know it, and their friends know it.” – IW5 The different characteristics of consumer activism behaviors may drive activists to select multiple tactics from their contentious repertoire instead of relying on a single form of action, as seen in Table 3. For example, it was common for participants currently boycotting a company to have also signed petitions, used social media, or spread the word to others. This reveals that consumer activists may combine different tactics to directly attack a violating company via more private actions and promote awareness and public support via more public-facing strategies. Although most of these tactics could be individually considered low-effort behaviors, when performed together as part of a larger consumer activism strategy, they may represent a greater level of commitment than initially proposed by other authors, who equated consumer activism to slacktivism (McCafferty, 2011; Morozov, 2009). Participants were not oblivious to the limits of consumer activism as a platform for citizens to exercise power and ascertain popular sovereignty over corporations. Our interview data indicate that, for some participants, personal disposable income constitutes a vital barrier limiting who can take action, what kind of actions can be performed, and for how long those actions can be exercised. This suggests that the assessment of consumer activists’ effort and commitment should be more inclusive and not solely focus on the behavior itself but also acknowledge the social reality of activists performing those behaviors. For example, boycotting is generally regarded in the literature as a low-threshold form of activism and, thus, less valued than high-threshold activist strategies, such as protesting. Our findings suggest that this perspective is rather simplistic for ignoring the differential personal costs that boycotting (and switching to more expensive brands) can have given someone’s economic status. This is illustrated in the excerpt below: 74 “If they have more money, I think it's a lot easier to shop ethically.” – IW3 Self-Identification Participants were also asked to reflect on whether they would consider themselves consumer activists. For most participants, this question cannot be answered in a dichotomous way, with a yes or no response, but rather it is the product of a self-reflection that indicates an activism continuum. “I guess when I think of activism, it's sort of a continuum.” – IW8 To place themselves in this imaginary continuum, participants often relied on their assessment of their individual commitment toward activist-like behaviors in the marketplace, the centrality of consumer activism to their identity, and, sometimes, reflected on the structural limits of using consumption to fight the emergence of ethical issues so tightly connected to capitalism. “To a degree [I would consider myself a consumer activist]. I won’t ever introduce myself to somebody as ‘Hi, I'm person X, and I'm a consumer activist.’ But in the back of my head, yeah, maybe.” – IW11 “Only in a very limited sense [I would consider myself a consumer activist]. I do think that I try to choose to use products and businesses that at least don't run far afield from what I believe. But I certainly am not someone who thinks that as a part of my identity, as a core of my identity.” – IW8 “It's like there's no ethical consumption under capitalism. So, I think a lot of people will take that to heart and just shop wherever they want. So, I think I'm not quite there. I think I do try and use my money… and at least not support things that are really against me. I think if I had more money, I would probably be more of a consumer activist” – IW3 It is interesting to note that as much as all participants have recently engaged in consumer 75 activist-like behaviors, there is an uneven split in whether they would see themselves as such. While many reported seeing themselves as consumer activists (N=7), some did not seem to perceive themselves in that same way (N=4), as indicated in Table 3. This suggests that merely asking whether someone is a consumer activist may lead to an inaccurate classification since people vary in their interpretations of the term and self-categorization. Personal Goals as Motivational Drivers of Consumer Activism Most of the interview was dedicated to exploring the motivational dimensions that could represent different consumer activism goals and gain richness in meaning that could also inform survey measurement items. To that end, participants were asked to describe the most memorable situation in which they acted against a company because of their unethical or controversial decisions or business practices. As earlier explained, upon collecting some essential factual information about these memorable activism episodes, such as when they happened and against what firms action was taken, the researcher explored the underlying reasons behind their actions. Specific questions and probes were used to tap into personally motivating goals identified in the literature (see Chapter 4). The semi-structured technique allowed the researcher to explore different motivational themes that naturally emerged during the interviews. A total of five main motivational themes were identified. These are explained below. Brand Punishment Consumers may decide to take action against companies as a way to punish the brand for engaging in objectionable practices. Congruent with boycotting (Klein et al., 2004) and activism (Turner, 2007) models, corporate transgressions are often met with arousing negative emotions, chiefly among them, anger. In that, consumer activism is an emotional experience. Interestingly, our findings show that consumers do not view anger expression as a terminal goal of their activism. Instead, anger creates emotional arousal, which increases the motivational goal of 76 punishing a violating brand. “So, the first obvious reaction that lots of people have, myself included, when they see or hear something that's going on like that, is anger.” – IW4 “I've reached out to a company directly to let them know my concerns and disappointments, and frankly, anger towards their decision.” – IW10 “You experience those negative emotions, but it seems that your goal was not simply to express those emotions but also to advocate for change […], promote some sort of message of where we are and where we should be” – IW6 Experienced anger seems to prime consumers to seek brand-punishing strategies within their existing contentious repertoire. Typically, that often entails boycotts and negative online and offline word of mouth. Consequently, when brand-punishing goals are activated (often by anger or other arousing negative emotions), activist-like behaviors are viewed as strategies to create financial or reputation harm to a violating company. “I realized that the biggest way to hit a company is to hit their pockets.” – IW6 “So, our money is probably even more significant than our votes. So, you really vote with your wallet in this day and age. So, in this case, it's like I'm casting my vote against them.” – IW1 “[I wanted] to maybe punish, or to put enough pressure to shame the company […] to maybe tarnish their reputation somehow […] I think […] there's nothing wrong with that, especially if [their behavior] is unethical.” – IW9 Furthermore, experienced anger and brand punishment seem to dwindle as time progresses, and the brand transgression episode becomes further out in the past. For example, one participant who has boycotted Ben & Jerry’s for many years reflected that his internal goals 77 changed over time. In that process, activism goals changed from being motivated by brand punishment and emotionally arousing negative feelings to a self-oriented, inward type of personally motivating goal, which we termed virtuous self and is later explained in this section. “[…] And now it's an internal thing. And what's happened in the sort of those intervening years is that there's not really anger left, right? But instead it's more of a peaceful, reflective moment, right, like… ‘Hey, I still think this.’” – IW8 Noteworthy, consumers often acknowledge the privileged position of corporations in politics and policymaking in the US, which creates the perception of an uneven landscape where companies can more easily get away with unethical or controversial practices than everyday citizens. For participants who expressed a heightened perception of corporate power and influence on politics, brand punishment can also represent an individual act of holding a corporation accountable when the government fails to do so. “They [corporations] don't get enough punishment for [their unethical practices], especially in the US.” – IW6 “You’re not getting a fine from the government, but you’re getting a fine from your customers.” – IW5 Also, for some consumer activists, brand punishment aims to create an aversive market condition for the brand to foster corporate accountability and change. From this perspective, brand punishment is less about reducing a negative psychological state created by the knowledge of a corporate transgression and more about creating instruments to force corporate executives to acknowledge their misdeeds and engage in course correction actions that demonstrate a greater alignment with existing consumer demands. This is where brand punishment goals intersect with business reformation goals, explored in the following subsection. This intersection is illustrated 78 below: “You do want to push them to change, but sometimes you just wanna hurt‘em because you feel so wronged by what they did or what they are. So, I think that it’s kind of both.” – IW4 “I’m gonna punish them, and maybe they’ll receive this as like a message for like you better change your behavior.” – IW5 “It felt like some kind of negative outcome would be required to recalibrate their actions […] They’re not going to change unless they’re punished, or at least feel a negative outcome. […] How much of what you do as punishments to just de-incentivize bad action and how much is to […] punish for punishment’s sake, how much is to try to generate changed action going forward […] It’s a murky place, and it’s… it’s hard to separate those concepts in some way.”– IW8 Business Reformation Participants oriented around business reformation goals share a perspective in which consumer activism is an incentive structure to foster ethical corporate behaviors. In that, business reformation entails a quest for changing business and marketplace norms. From boycotting to social media sharing to joining anti-brand online groups, participants reported being motivated to create change and make a difference. This emerges from consumers’ understanding that the current state of affairs is undesirable and far from how it should be. Therefore, reforming certain business practices becomes a consumer activist goal. “Activism comes in until that change actually happens. And once it happens, they’ve been held accountable.” – IW9 “It feels like there is this goal of, like, punishing those companies for their wrongdoings. Yes, but also trying to push for change like for them to see their mistakes and maybe change their corporate practices or their decisions. […] “[It] is like dealing with a toddler. You sit them 79 in time out to kind of give them a break to reevaluate what they’re doing and readjust their behavior to come out with a better outcome” – IW6 “You aren’t just spreading awareness, you’re actually like trying to change something… you’re trying to demonstrate something.” – IW7 “I wanna push the world in a certain direction even if it’s just a nudge.” – IW1 Interestingly, participants often refer to consumer activists’ collective efficacy (Bandura, 2000) when discussing business reformation goals. Some participants, especially those who did not seem to foster business reformation goals in their activism, tend to report high levels of skepticism about the efficacy of their actions concerning changing business practices. Efficacy concerns are often related to the perceived negligible effect that one’s actions can have against powerful corporations. “Maybe on the microscale, it is having an impact, maybe not. It makes me feel good. And I’m doing my best.” – IW3 “And I don’t think they’ve ever done anything to change what they’re doing, and they probably won’t…” – IW2 Among those who were more strongly motivated by business reformation goal, collective efficacy is not overlooked. Business reformers seem to cultivate a more positive outlook regarding the normative value of consumer activism. “You’re going to be motivated to try to push that company to change […] You [are] just one person, but one person becomes two people, and so on and so forth. And if you get the ball rolling, that snowball effect is a real thing […] But one person can make a difference.” – IW4 “I realize that, you know, exponentially, when people start to do this, that’s how change happens.” – IW9 80 Consumer Duty Congruent with the political consumerism literature (Micheletti, 2003), our interview data suggests that individuals may engage in consumer activism due to a responsibility-taking motivation. For some consumer activists, taking action represents fulfilling a sense of personal duty when their value system opposes corporate decisions or practices. This perspective is also aligned with boycott research that proposes that consumers may be motivated to boycott brands due to a moral obligation (Heldman, 2017; Kozinets & Handelman, 1998; Nguyen et al., 2018; Shim et al., 2021). As posed by Nguyen et al. (2018), “boycotters feel they have a responsibility and moral obligation to commit and ‘do their bit’” (p. 7). The excerpts below demonstrate that consumer duty is a motivational goal. “I feel like it is my […] personal duty to uphold these morals” – IW9 “I knew I wasn’t able to be out in the streets […], but I felt like I needed to do something that I was able to do.” – IW6 “I think you know if I see something’s wrong I should say something about it, you know, somebody is doing something wrong say ‘hey this person is doing something wrong.’” – IW2 “I think everyone has a responsibility or duty, but in situations like that, if everyone else says: ‘Well, somebody else is gonna take care of it’ […] If there’s ten people in a room […] at least one of us should be doing something.”– IW11 Participants often frame their consumer activism duty as an extension of their civic and political duties, such as voting. Differently from non-activists, who may feel more inclined to delegate such responsibility to policymakers, participants who expressed this goal seem to cultivate a shared responsibility to stand up and do something. “I thought it was a duty, kind of like voting […], and make sure our voices heard […] It’s more like a sense of duty.” – IW10 81 “You can vote, but voting feels like… I do vote, but I feel a little futile sometimes. I’m in a red state. It’s not gonna change much, so, yeah, it’s a way to take action. That’s a little bit outside of that electoral system which I think is nice, because I often feel failed by the electoral system in the US.” – IW3 Last, engaging in duty-call consumer activism seems to lead to positive self-evaluation, which may function as a feedback (learning) mechanism that drives future behavior, where fulfilling one’s civic duty or personal responsibility via consumer activism is positively reinforced through “feel good” feelings. This indicates an interrelationship between consumer duty and virtuous self, another motivational goal we identified. “It is my personal responsibility, but at the end of the day, it still makes me feel good.” – IW9 Network Solidarity Most participants also indicated that their actions are motivated by empathy and solidarity toward others directly impacted by corporate actions. Congruent with past studies, our interview data support the notion that activism can be motivated by empathy and solidarity toward those affected by corporate actions (Anderl, 2022; Kim, 2021; Rahbari, 2021; Routledge et al., 2007) and influenced by other-regarding virtues, feelings of empathy, and altruism (Grappi et al., 2013; John & Klein, 2003; Romani et al., 2015). “There’s a feeling of understanding and solidarity […] Letting other people know they are not alone. It’s not going to fix everything, but it certainly helps.” – IW7 “There’s definitely a component of empathy […] Companies, they see dollar signs, and their employees and people, to them, are just numbers. But, you know, […] there are families that are being affected by a company’s poor practices. And to me, there’s definitely a component of empathy […][that] drives my activism in this manner.” – IW9 82 When reflecting on consumer activism as an act of solidarity, participants frequently connected their activist-like behaviors with the overarching idea of togetherness, which is expressed by the perception that “we are all in this together.” This idea is often expressed in two ways. First, from a consumeristic perspective, it is expressed in terms of how easy it is for people, socialized into a hyper-individualistic consumption culture, to ignore the impact of their brand preferences and product choices on the lives of others taken advantage of by corporations. “There are lots of people that don’t care what’s going on halfway around the world. […] You know, lots of times, people are very reactive when it comes to stuff like that […] until it happens to them. […] You need to make sure that other people are taken care of […] because, at the end of the day, we’re all in this together.” – IW4 Second, togetherness can also be expressed in terms of systemic, often invisible oppression that affects multiple social groups, activists included. Still, consumer activists may not always be directly affected by the same form of oppression experienced by corporate victims. In those instances, however, the oppression is vicariously experienced through a heightened sense of empathy. “I still have plenty in common with the guy who sweeps the floor […] In our American society, if you are not on the top, you’re getting fucked […] And that’s important for people to realize […] I think we all share that […] That’s capitalism, that’s America, dude. That’s just how it is.” – IW7 “Quite honestly, all of my boycotts that I’ve ever done have been in support of people. The Nestle boycott […] is because they have taken advantage of the poorest of the poor people, in particular in Africa. My boycott of Coke is because you’re not taking care of the environment […] because again, I am thinking long term […] about [future] generations.” – IW4 83 “So, I felt like minorities weren’t being heard, minorities were being taken advantage of, and just not being seen as humans.” – IW6 Thus, by engaging in consumer activism in solidarity with a group, one is also contributing to dismantling (even negligibly) forms of oppression. Moreover, consumer activists tend to consider the broader impact of their actions across networks of people with varying degrees of connectedness, from close friends to an imagined network that weaves together the consumer activist with oppressed groups in other countries, as identified in global activism research (Routledge et al., 2007). “I have a lot of queer friends, and I think it’s kind of insulting to eat there [Chick Fill-A] as a straight person.” – IW3 “I don’t buy Apple products because years ago I heard about their factories in China [where] people were committing suicide […] that’s terrible, you know? You can’t do stuff like that. It’s just mind-boggling” – IW2 “I want to go out there to show support because […] these people need people to stick up for them. My buddy needed […] all those Stop & Shop workers […] needed people to go out there and help them, and people did it.” – IW7 Furthermore, to some participants, solidarity and empathy were also extended to other activists. Participants reflected that their activism was spurred by solidarity toward other activists. This indicates that network solidarity is a goal that can drive consumer activists toward action and can be activated in response to 1) corporate victims and 2) other activists. For example, one participant reported joining a picketing line in front of a store to support a friend already participating in the action. Another participant mentioned that their consumer activism against Starbucks was also influenced by watching the BLM protests on TV, which is a 84 particularly interesting case: “Me being immunocompromised and no vaccines were available... I… I didn't want to risk my health, going into a situation like that, but I felt like I needed to do something that I was able to do.” – IW6. As recalled by the participant, at the time of her activism, vaccines were not available and health concerns prevented her from joining those on the ground. Thus, watching people taking their grievances regarding racism and police brutality to the streets inspired the participant to boycott, sign multiple petitions, and use social media to protest against Starbucks. As earlier mentioned, Starbucks was targeted for their lack of support toward BLM and perceived attempt to silence some of their employees by not allowing them to wear BLM pins on their work uniform while allowing other pins, related to other causes, to be used, such as the LGBTQ+ rainbow pin. Virtuous Self Consumer activism can also lead to positive cognitive and emotional outcomes, such as feeling good about oneself, having a clear conscience, and being in a good headspace. In that, activism participation is often associated with self-pride and can become a platform for activists to establish or enhance a more virtuous self. “You know… that [consumer activism] goes a long way... In my mind, your own mental health, you know, just making sure that if you’re doing the right thing, that you have a clear conscience, and if you have a clear conscience, then, you know, you’re in a good headspace.” – IW4 “I feel good that I don’t see them [in reference to boycotted brands]… that I don’t see them… [inside] my house.” – IW1 “I guess it’s kind of a self-congratulatory […] feel-good moment. But also, the other side 85 of that ‘feeling good’ is, you know, again, just making a difference.” – IW4 “I did feel better from the beginning. So that’s why I kept doing it.” – IW9 Our interview data suggest that the virtuous consumer activist self is achieved through value signaling mechanisms that allowactivists communicate their values in and outwardly. The inward mechanism seems to focus on maintaining cognitive consistency between the activists’ value systems and actions. Thus, this represents consumer activists’ motivational goal to communicate or reaffirm their virtues to themselves. As mentioned by multiple participants, it is virtually impossible to stand up against every single company that crosses certain ethical boundaries. This would take considerable time and much more effort than one is willing or able to commit. In the case of boycotting, another challenge is the irreplaceability of certain brands and products, i.e., boycott participation costs (Sen et al., 2001). Therefore, taking action against selected brands carries a symbolic meaning that one is doing the right thing, even if it is the bare minimum. “I feel a little bit like the bare minimum. But it does feel like a way to signal my values […] Not eating a Chick Fill-A is not a huge thing for me. I’m a vegetarian. There have been times when it’s like the only place around. I’ve done traveling when I’m in my car, and I’m on a road trip, and there are plenty of Chick Fill-As, and I just won’t go there.” – IW3 “I guess maybe there’s some piece of it that is outward. [But] I think it’s more inward. It’s more, in some ways, almost a connection [In reference to close relatives who passed]. My grandfather is dead now. He’s been dead for a while. So, this is a connection to sort of that memory, and to sort of who I am and where I come from.” – IW8 Furthermore, value signaling can also take an outward direction. This represents consumer activists’ goal to communicate their virtues to others. From this perspective, 86 cultivating a virtuous consumer activism self also serves a secondary function of raising awareness and promoting a cause. “I care about it so much that I want to display this outward like this is a critical thing like preserving LGBTQ+ rights. […] It’s more like taking away your values outwardly to kind of promote the things that you stand for.” – IW7 Discussion In Phase 1, 11 in-depth, semi-structured online interviews with consumer activists were conducted. Our findings suggest that our conceptualization of consumer activism as a goal- oriented behavior is supported (see Chapter 2). Additionally, the proposed 6 Ps of consumer activism (see Chapter 2) are also congruent with the meaning that consumer activism is imbued with from the participants’ perspective. The interview data demonstrate that consumer activism is a personal experience of holding companies accountable for their questionable practices through a variety of behaviors that aim to challenge corporations to change their practices. Furthermore, congruent with our conceptualization, consumer activism is understood as a phenomenon that can happen collectively or individually and entail private and public behaviors. We uncovered five main motivational goals that energize consumers to take action against companies: brand punishment, business reformation, consumer duty, network solidarity, and virtuous self. Also, two of these goals seem to comprise important subdimensions. This is the case of network solidarity goal, which can be directed toward victims and other activists, and virtuous self, which can have an inward and outward orientation. Brand punishment can be expressed as a goal to punish the brand financially or reputationally due to a perceived ethical transgression or violation. This motivational dimension is congruent with extant literature showing that consumer activism can be motivated by an intent to punish a violating company (Braunsberger & Buckler, 2011; John & Klein, 2003; Makarem & 87 Jae, 2016; Yousaf et al., 2021). Our findings show that brand punishment seems to be an immediate goal fueled by negative, arousing emotions experienced upon knowledge of a brand transgression episode. However, anger expression is not a personal goal in the context of consumer activism. In line with motivational theories (Ford, 1992), our findings suggest that anger functions as an emotionally arousing experience, which enhances the motivation to punish the brand. Additionally, our findings are congruent with the product and service failure literature (Grégoire & Fisher, 2008; Johnson et al., 2011; Khamitov et al., 2020), in providing evidence that anger and the desire to punish a brand are short-lived and may cease or evolve into another personal goal. A similar longitudinal pattern has also been reported in online consumer activism (Muraro et al., in press), where activists’ posts expressing a desire to punish a violating brand dwindled over time and fueled other forms of digital activism microframes on Twitter. Business reformation entails a quest for changing business and marketplace norms. Business reformers aim to make a difference with their activism and seem to have a lower threshold for what change means. Unlike brand punishment, business reformation concerns incentivizing business changes or the acknowledgment (and cessation) of their wrongdoings. This perspective has been long validated in lifestyle politics and political consumerism (de Moor, 2017; Micheletti, 2003). In the boycott literature, business reformation is also referred to as an instrumental motivation (Friedman, 1991) or motivation to make a difference (Klein et al., 2004). More recently, Nguyen et al. (2018) termed this motivation as “desire for social change” or a personal goal of “[making] a contribution to society.” However, we believe business reformation more clearly identifies the underlying consumer activist goal and the target, the violating company. 88 Consumer duty represents consumer activists’ aim to fulfill a personal duty when their value systems collide with corporate practices, which is congruent with the concept of moral obligation as a consumer activism motivational drive (Fernandes, 2020; Lindenmeier et al., 2012; Micheletti, 2003; Nguyen et al., 2018; Smith, 1990). Thus, consumer activism entails a responsibility-taking motivation, often conceptualized as an extension of traditional political participation. Thus, consumer duty can be defined as a personal (and shared) responsibility of consumers to uphold specific values and hold corporations accountable, which is often compared to other civic and political duties (de Zúñiga et al., 2014). Our findings supporting the conceptual differentiation between consumer duty and business reformation goals have theoretical value since the literature has been unclear concerning the conceptual boundaries between business reformation and consumer duty motivational goals, as termed in this study. Our qualitative data provides a preliminary understanding that consumer activists’ intention to change corporate behaviors (business reformation) and perceived moral obligation (consumer duty) can be conceptualized as separate personal goals that tend to appear together for most activists in our qualitative sample. Network solidarity reflects a personal belief that we are all in this together. This goal seems to be activated in two distinct ways: In relation to 1) other activists (Hunt & Benford, 2004; Melucci, 1995; Moskalenko & Mccauley, 2009) and 2) those affected by corporate transgressions (Hunt & Benford, 2004; Kim, 2021; Rahbari, 2021; Routledge et al., 2007). Network solidarity is the only goal that does not seem to directly focus either on the activist – consumer duty or virtuous self, or the violating company – brand punishment and business reformation. Instead, this goal is connected to activists’ networks, ranging from immediate friends to imagined networks of geographically distant social groups in different countries or 89 continents or even non-human animals. Network solidarity can be defined as a personal aim to demonstrate solidarity and empathy toward others affected by unethical corporate decisions and those who are also taking some form of action. Last, virtuous self is a motivational goal that expresses consumer activists’ aim to maintain or achieve a virtuous self by behaving in a manner consistent with whom they think they are (self-concept), would like to be (ideal concept), or how they like to present themselves to others (social concept). By behaving in a manner congruent with their self, ideal, or social concepts, humans are expected to derive self-enhancement and feel better about themselves (Pyszczynski et al., 2004; Sirgy, 1982; Swann et al., 1987). Consequently, consumer activists can feel good about themselves and have a clear conscience (or clean hands), achieved through value signaling mechanisms. As reported in the literature, consumer activism may be an experience conducive to self-evaluation enhancement for allowing participants “to boost social and personal self-esteem either by associating with a cause or group of people or simply by viewing [themselves] as a moral person” (Klein et al., 2004, p. 97). In addition, as posed by Smith (1990) and John and Klein (2003), consumers may also be motivated to engage in collective action to experience feelings such as “doing the right thing” or “clean hands,” which are likely to lead to a more positive self-evaluation. Thus, virtuous self can be conceptualized as a goal to in- and outwardly signal one’s ethical or moral values. Our Phase 1 findings’ contributions are four-fold. First, it identifies five crucial personally motivating goals, an essential advancement in the literature that should encourage researchers to conceptualize consumer activism motivations as a multidimensional concept. Additionally, our findings suggest that consumer activists are not single-minded in their goals. It is common for consumer activists to be motivated by multiple, interconnected goals. Moreover, 90 in this process, we have been able to detect the commonalities and differences across previous motivational goals identified in the literature and propose an original typological organization as to how they could be conceptualized. Last, the proposed motivating goals stem from consumer activists’ perspective, which adds richness in meaning to them and is expected to increase the validity of the final measurement scale. Phase 2: Panel of Experts Based on the reviewed literature, previous measurement items, and, most importantly, consumer activists’ verbalizations from Phase 1, 67 initial survey items were created. These items were designed to represent each of the five personal goals. This set of items was then submitted to a panel of experts for review in Phase 2. In scale development, once an initial pool of items has been generated, it is often recommended that the scale is submitted to a content validity assessment through an independent panel of experts (Churchill, 1979; DeVellis, 2012; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). Scale validation is a complex endeavor and concerns, in general terms, the degree to which a set of measurement items are indeed measuring the concept at hand (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Content validity represents one type of validity and entails the assessment of the extent to which measurement items represent the underlying conceptual domain of interest and its identified dimensions (DeVellis, 2012; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Recruiting Following DeVellis' (2012) guidelines for this stage of scale development, three experts with relevant knowledge about the content domain and scale development methodology were invited to serve as experts in an independent panel to review the initial pool of 67 items. Experts were faculty of a large Midwestern university with expertise in consumer psychology, scale development methodology, corporate social responsibility, political 91 participation, and online mobilization. The selected domains of knowledge represent the most influential theoretical perspectives in the study of consumer activism, which enabled a careful examination of content validity from the perspective of the consumer (consumer psychology), the company (corporate social responsibility), and the society (political participation and mobilization). Methods Similar to Zaichkowsky (1985), experts were asked to rate the pre-identified dimensions and items as ‘clearly representative,’ ‘somewhat representative,’ and ‘not representative’ of the associated motivational dimension. For this task, experts received written instructions to carry out the rating activity individually. Following this rating task, experts’ ratings were consolidated by the researcher. Items classified as ‘clearly representative’ and ‘somewhat representative’ were retained, and those flagged as ‘not representative’ by all three experts were removed for being considered inadequate. Finally, items marked as ‘not representative’ by one or two experts were selected to be the subject of an online video conference discussion among experts. The online discussion aimed to resolve classification disagreements and allow the experts to suggest the inclusion of new items. Results In total, 12 items were removed at this stage, representing 18 percent of the original pool. Additionally, experts’ feedback was used to implement minor adjustments to 12 additional items that improved item wording consistency and clarity. Last, experts brainstormed about additional items to ensure the theoretical breadth of the measurement scale. The final output of this phase contained 68 items representing the five identified dimensions of consumer activism motivations. Discussion Phase 2 represented a vital step in scale development to optimize its content validity. The 92 three experts were selected to represent the most influential theoretical perspectives in the study of consumer activism, as identified in the reviewed literature in previous chapters. Our results indicate that the revised pool of measurement items is representative of the five motivational goals identified in Phase 1. Thus, content validity is established. Phase 3: Cognitive Interviews Before the final pool of items is administered to a sample of participants via a survey questionnaire, best practices in scale development (DeVellis, 2012) and survey methods (Fowler, 1995; Groves et al., 2009) recommend that the survey measurement items are pre-tested to ensure that the target population can interpret and understand the items systematically and as intended by the researcher. Pretest results enable researchers to engage in another round of scale refinement and adjust any items that create confusion due to the use of unfamiliar words for the target population or are idiosyncratically understood and interpreted by participants (Churchill, 1979; DeVellis, 2012; Feinberg et al., 2008; Groves et al., 2009). When answering a survey, participants engage in four main cognitive tasks: survey question comprehension, memory retrieval of relevant information, internal assessment of a response, and response reporting (Groves et al., 2009). Respondents’ difficulties with any of these tasks can introduce additional error to survey estimates, namely measurement error variance and bias (or systemic error). Measurement variance happens when respondents idiosyncratically vary in their answers due to different interpretations or understanding of the same survey item – which would render the item unreliable (Groves et al., 2009). Measurement bias happens when participants are somewhat uniform in making an incorrect (or unintended) interpretation of a survey item – which would create an issue of measurement validity since the construct in researchers’ minds does not correspond to respondents' interpretation of it. (Groves 93 et al., 2009). Measurement problems consist of an additional source of uncertainty beyond that represented by the survey sampling error, which can lead to an increase in survey estimates uncertainty not captured by the confidence interval of the sampling mean (Groves et al., 2009). Therefore, when surveys are not optimized to reduce measurement error, variability in the true score of respondents’ answers is conflated with measurement error. Cognitive interviews hold considerable importance in scale development pretesting because they can shed light on sources of variable and systematic forms of measurement errors that arise from item comprehension, interpretation, and answer formulation problems (DeVellis, 2012; K. Ryan et al., 2012). Cognitive interviews were originally proposed in the 1980s as a pretesting tool when survey methodologists and cognitive psychologists began working interdisciplinarily (Fowler, 1995). This type of interview is designed to tap into the aforementioned cognitive processes and ensure that participants’ (a) have a common understanding of survey items and that variability in responses represents true differences among respondents and not differences in question interpretation, (b) can access any relevant information stored in their memories, (c) can formulate a mental response and (d) translate those responses to the questionnaire (DeVellis, 2012; Groves et al., 2009; K. Ryan et al., 2012). Therefore, we employed the cognitive interview technique to pretest the 68 items retained after the experts’ review phase. Methods A total of four cognitive interviews were completed, which can be considered an adequate sample size to detect significant question comprehension issues for pretesting a small- scale survey, especially when interviews yield redundant information concerning potential measurement errors (Blair & Conrad, 2011; Groves et al., 2009; K. Ryan et al., 2012), which was 94 the case in our pretest. The average interview duration was 56.52 minutes (SD = 4.59). Since the primary goal of this pretesting method is to minimize measurement error among the population of interest, we adopted the same recruiting protocol utilized for the in- depth interviews (Phase 1) to recruit a new, independent sample of participants for the cognitive interviews. Similar to the in-depth interviews, participants were recruited through Prolific and received the equivalent of 20 British pounds in US dollars for their time. Participants’ mean age was 43.67 years (SD = 14.64) – one participant did not disclose their age. In total, two participants self-identified as females, one as non-binary, and one as a transgender male. Regarding racial representation, two participants self-identified as White, one as Black, and one as Native American or indigenous. In addition, participants represented different educational groups, two with a technical or community college degree, one with a graduate degree, and another with a high school degree. Three participants reported annual income between $10,000 to $59,999, and one earned less than $10,000. Finally, the political ideology of the sample skews liberal, with three participants self-identified as liberals and one as moderate. Upon oral consent, the interview followed a structured protocol and was organized into two main sections. The first part, considerably shorter than the second, provided participants with general instructions about the interview procedure and included a warm-up task in which participants were trained to use the think-aloud technique for cognitive interviews (Fowler, 1995; K. Ryan et al., 2012). In the second part, participants were asked to access the survey questionnaire, programmed on Qualtrics, and work their way through the instrument using the think-aloud technique. The think-aloud technique requires participants to say out loud what they are thinking as they attempt to answer a survey question and is helpful to tap into “how questions 95 are being understood and answers being generated” (Fowler, 1995, p. 112). In addition, verbal probes were used to guide participants when necessary. Results Three minor issues were detected via cognitive interviewing. First, some items that used the expression “of a sense of” (e.g., “I took action because of a sense of empathy…”) were not clear enough for participants, and comprehension was improved when a more direct statement (e.g., “I took action because I felt empathy…”) was used. Therefore, some statements were edited accordingly. Also, a few statements were perceived as more generic because they referred to companies in the plural (e.g., “I think it is my duty to call it out when companies behave unethically”). When thinking aloud, some respondents expressed certain confusion as to whether the statement was still related to the most recent time they took action (as originally intended) or if the statement represented a shift in the survey to tap into multiple past actions they had participated in more broadly. Thus, comprehension was improved (to match the intended meaning) when the item was slightly reworded in the singular form (e.g., “…when the company behaved unethically”). Last, a few items that were worded in the present tense (e.g., “I think it is my duty to call it out when companies behave unethically”) worked better when worded using the past tense (e.g., “I think it was my duty…”). When worded in the past tense, the statements helped participants frame their answers concerning the most recent time they engaged in consumer activist-like behaviors, as opposed to drawing more general inferences about multiple activist-like events. Additionally, one participant reflected that the word ‘denigrate’ in the statement “I wanted to denigrate the company’s name” could be hard for some people to understand. Also, another participant suggested the same for the word ‘harmoniously’ in the statement, “I take pride in behaving harmoniously with my moral principles.” However, all four participants were 96 able to understand both terms correctly. Therefore, given their suggestions' helpful yet speculative (probabilistic) nature, we decided to keep both terms in the scale. Last, at the end of the interview, participants were asked to reflect on their overall experience with the survey questionnaire. A negative survey experience can indicate survey participants’ fatigue and lower motivation to provide optimal answers, which could impact data quality (Groves et al., 2009). Participants’ feedback was positive and suggested that participants’ motivation in participating in the survey was high. Thus, our results provide qualitative evidence that participants' cognitive ability and motivation to participate in the survey would be adequate to minimize measurement error and increase survey data quality. The final pool of measurement items from Study 1 is presented in Table 4. 97 Table 4. Final List of Measurement Items Measurement Items Dimensions I took action because… 1 I wanted to shame the company 2 I wanted to harm the company 3 I wanted to offend the company 4 I wanted to create a negative outcome for the company 5 I wanted to punish the company in some way 6 I wanted to tarnish the company's reputation Brand 7 I wanted to damage the company's image Punishment 8 I wanted to denigrate the company's name 9 I wanted to hurt the company's profits 10 I wanted to affect the company's bottom line 11 I wanted to hit the company's pocket 12 I wanted to hit the company in their wallet 13 I wanted to negatively affect the company's market position 14 I wanted to incentivize the company to change its practices 15 I wanted to force the company to adjust its way of doing business 16 I wanted to nudge the company in the right direction 17 I wanted to hold the company accountable 18 I wanted to help the company to change its behaviors Business 19 I wanted the company to adjust its practices Reformation 20 I wanted the company to implement changes in the right direction 21 I wanted the company to acknowledge its mistakes 22 I wanted the company to reevaluate its actions/decisions 23 I wanted to help the company see its mistakes 24 I wanted to force the company to recognize its misconduct 25 I wanted to contribute to building a better world by holding the company accountable 26 I had a shared responsibility to hold the company accountable It was my civic duty to voice my concerns when the company engaged in unethical 27 behaviors 28 I felt responsible for doing something when the company violated an important issue 29 I think it was my duty to call it out when the company behaved unethically 30 I think it was my obligation to stand up against a corporate wrongdoing 31 I felt personally responsible to speak up when the company misbehaved Consumer 32 I think it was my responsibility to act against a corporate transgression Duty I needed to do something when I learned that the company crossed certain ethical 33 boundaries 34 I had to stick up against a corporate action that violated an important issue 35 I considered it my personal duty 36 It was my duty 37 It was my moral obligation 38 It was my ethical obligation 39 I felt solidarity with those affected by the company 40 I felt empathy for those affected by the company Network 41 I felt compassion for those affected by the company Solidarity - 42 I cared about those affected by the company Between 43 I felt respect for those affected by the company Group 44 I wanted to show my support for those affected by the company 45 I felt a sense of “brotherhood” or “sisterhood” with those affected by the company 46 I stood united with those affected by the company 98 Table 4 (cont’d) 47 I felt solidarity with others who also took action 48 I wanted to establish solidarity with others who also took action 49 I felt empathy for others who also took action Network 50 I wanted to cooperate with others who also took action Solidarity - 51 I felt respect for others who also took action In-Group 52 I wanted to back up others who also took action 53 I wanted to support others who also took action 54 I felt a sense of “brotherhood” or “sisterhood” with others who also took action 55 I stood united with others who also took action 56 I wanted to have a clear conscience 57 I wanted to be in a good headspace 58 I wanted to feel better about myself 59 I wanted to feel good about myself 60 I wanted my actions to align with my values 61 It was rewarding to act consistently with my moral beliefs Virtuous 62 I wanted to behave harmoniously with my moral principles Self 63 I wanted to demonstrate support for the issues I care about 64 It was important to signal my values to others 65 I wanted to express my commitment to issues that are important to me 66 I wanted to display my moral beliefs 67 It was satisfying to express support for the issues I value 68 I wanted to express my moral principles Discussion In Phase 3, we conducted four cognitive interviews with consumer activists using the think-aloud technique. Question-wording issues were detected and adjusted accordingly to enhance participants’ comprehension. Our findings indicate that the final pool of measurement items was optimized to reduce all identified potential sources of measurement error. Therefore, the proposed measurement scale and the overall questionnaire design were considered acceptable, and we proceeded with the quantitative assessment of the scale measurement properties conducted in Study 2. 99 CHAPTER SEVEN: STUDY 2 – EXPLORATORY QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND SCALE RELIABILITY Study 1 demonstrates that consumer activism can be conceptualized as a goal-oriented behavior with distinct motivational dimensions directed by personal goals. More specifically, we identified five main motivational goals that distinctively energize consumers toward action, namely, brand punishment, business reformation, civic duty, network solidarity, which can be subdivided into solidarity toward the victims and to other activists, and virtuous self, which can also be partitioned into and in- and outward value signaling goals. These findings represent an original contribution to the literature supported by the reviewed theoretical frameworks and the multidisciplinary consumer activism body of knowledge. The objective of Study 2 is to statistically examine the underlying factorial structure of the previously identified personal goals as a motivational force in driving consumer activism behaviors. As recommended by scale development methodologists (Carpenter, 2018; Churchill, 1979; DeVellis, 2012), once a final pool of items has been generated and assessed for content validity, the scale should be submitted to a quantitative, exploratory assessment via EFA to allow researchers to statistically explore the number of latent factors that can meaningfully explain response variability within the target population (Churchill, 1979; DeVellis, 2012; Kline, 2013; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Therefore, the second study aims to shed light on the number of latent factors of consumer activism motivations and assess the internal reliability of the proposed 68 measurement items in representing such latent factors through a process that entails multiple methodological and theoretical considerations (Carpenter, 2018; Clark & Watson, 1995; Kline, 2015; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006), which are detailed below. 100 Methods Analytical Approach Data Factorability Before an EFA can be performed, data should be first inspected to determine whether the correlational patterns suggest the existence of latent factors (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011), which can be accomplished via the visual inspection of the correlation matrix, the Barlett’s test of sphericity, and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy. The correlation matrix should be inspected for values below 0.3 for items indicating the same latent factor, indicating problematic measures because of reduced common variability (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Barlett’s test and the KMO aim to determine whether the assumption of a linear relationship among variables is plausible. Otherwise, a common latent structure cannot exist. Barlett’s test statistically assesses the null hypothesis that the main diagonal of the correlation matrix is composed of “ones.” KMO determines the proportion of variance in the variables that a latent factor could explain, and a value of .6 is often regarded as the minimum acceptable threshold for EFA (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Factor Extraction Although principal component analysis is a standard practice in factor extraction, multiple methodologists advise against its use for scale development in the social sciences (Carpenter, 2018; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). As much as some researchers have reported virtually no differences between PCA and FA results (Costello & Osborne, 2005), PCA represents a mathematically-reductionist approach, and its use for scale development has been discouraged in the past decades by methodologists when the goal is to determine the number of latent factors in scale development. The main reason is that PCA does not discriminate between shared (communalities) and residual (uniqueness) variance among measurement items. This 101 method assumes that the total item variance is a source of common variance, which is not realistic in the social sciences (Kline, 2015). On the other hand, EFA models differentiate between these two types of variance and assume that residual variance is uncorrelated with the latent factors (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). EFA leads to more reliable estimates of the amount of shared variance explained by the latent factors (Carpenter, 2018; Costello & Osborne, 2005). Therefore, factors were extracted using principal axis factoring (PAF), a common factor analysis approach which is more robust to normality violation than other factor extraction techniques, such as the maximum likelihood estimation (Fabrigar et al., 1999; Kline, 2013). PAF tends to provide more reliable and generalizable estimates (Kline, 2013) and was implemented using the R Psych package (Revelle, 2022). Number of Factors The number of factors was examined jointly using a scree plot and parallel analysis (Carpenter, 2018; Fabrigar et al., 1999), produced using the R JVM package (Jamovi, 2022). The scree plot assessment relies on the visual display of the eigenvalues, representing a standardized redistribution of the explained common variance of all measurement items across factors (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). The method was first proposed by Raymond Catell, which proposes that factors above the “elbow” in the plot, created by a drop in the eigenvalues, should be retained (Kline, 2013). However, the method is somewhat subjective and should be used as heuristic evidence instead of an absolute criterion to determine the number of retained factors (Kline, 2013). Parallel analysis (PA) (Horn, 1965) is a more complex procedure that compares the obtained eigenvalues with those that would arise from a similar set of random variables (Kline, 2013) and is more robust to normality violations (Li et al., 2020). The number of retained factors is determined by the number of eigenvalues situated above the eigenvalues randomly generated. Therefore, this method is regarded as more sophisticated because it accounts for 102 sampling error and random chance (Fabrigar et al., 1999; Kline, 2013; Li et al., 2020). The determination of the number of factors should also observe the theoretically-driven dimensionality of the concept of interest, namely, the theoretical convergence of the number of factors (DeVellis, 2012; Fabrigar et al., 1999; Kline, 2013; Norris M & Lecavalier L, 2010; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011; Tinsley & Tinsley, 1987). Thus, whenever statistical analysis and theory offer competing solutions, models with different numbers of factors should be explored via EFA (Carpenter, 2018; DeVellis, 2012). Factor Rotation Factor rotation is an essential part of scale development and contributes to creating more interpretable factors by maximizing the between-factor distinctions (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). A promax oblique rotation was employed to allow factors to covary, which is warranted in the social sciences (Carpenter, 2018; Costello & Osborne, 2005; Kline, 2013; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). The promax method is a popular and robust method in scale development (Carpenter, 2018; Fabrigar & Wegener, 2011). It begins with an orthogonal rotation and iteratively optimizes factor rotation to allow factors to covary (Kline, 2013). Varimax rotation, probably the most prevalent factor rotation method (Carpenter, 2018; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006), is a type of orthogonal rotation and, as such, assumes that factors are forced to be perpendicular to each other, which in turn creates uncorrelated latent factors (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Consequently, when the assumption of uncorrelated factors is not supported but forced by the researcher upon the data, the proportion and size of cross-loadings increase (Carpenter, 2018; Fabrigar et al., 1999). This has led several methodologists to advise against orthogonal rotation methods in the social sciences because the assumption of uncorrelated factors is often not supported (Carpenter, 2018; Kline, 2013; Raykov 103 & Marcoulides, 2011; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). Item Retention and Scale Length Optimization Initial item retention and deletion observed the principles of simple factor structure (Thurstone, 1931), which entails minimizing cross-loadings and maximizing factor loadings as much as possible (Worthington & Whittaker, 2006) – for a thorough explanation on this, see Raykov and Marcoulides (2011, p.46-7). Thus, item retention observed the following criteria: primary factor loadings equal or above the conservative cutoff point of .5, cross-loadings of. 30 or lower (Li et al., 2020) and with a difference of at least .15 from primary loadings (Worthington & Whittaker, 2006), commonalities above .40 (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006), while also retaining at least three items per factor for model estimation purposes (Carpenter, 2018; Kline, 2015; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). A minimum of .5 for loadings is typically necessary for convergent validity (Bagozzi & Youjae, 1988; Churchill, 1979; Newell & Goldsmith, 2001; Tanwar & Prasad, 2017). In addition, Cronbach’s alpha for each factor was examined to ensure that the retained items achieved an alpha level equal to or above the .80 threshold (Churchill, 1979; DeVellis, 2012; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Cronbach’s alpha estimates the proportion of shared variance among items and can be a reasonable estimate of the correlation between the true score (latent factor) and the observed score (measurement items) (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Also, items whose elimination resulted in an alpha coefficient improvement were examined for their potential removal (Churchill, 1979; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Equally important, item retention should observe scale validity and scale length optimization (Carpenter, 2018; DeVellis, 2012). Moreover, in the process of item deletion, researchers should ensure that the retained items still properly represent the conceptual domains of interest, namely, the theoretical convergence of the items (Carpenter, 2018; Costello & 104 Osborne, 2005; DeVellis, 2012; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). An underlying premise of scale development is that measurement items should represent the breadth of the concept being measured, i.e., content validity (Carpenter, 2018; Churchill, 1979; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Otherwise, scale validity would be compromised (DeVellis, 2012; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Therefore, the retained items should represent all theory-driven latent dimensions of a construct and reflect the “purpose for which [the scale] has been developed” (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011, p. 184). Last, whenever the steps above result in a relatively long scale, researchers are encouraged to further reduce the number of items to an optimal level for the practical applications (DeVellis, 2012). The final retained measurement items should be submitted to another EFA to ensure that the scale meets the principles of simple factor structure and reliability (Newell & Goldsmith, 2001; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). Data Collection and Sampling Qualtrics consumer panel service (Qualtrics, 2023) was used for survey recruiting during December 2022. Participants were selected via quota sampling to represent the US population in terms of age, gender, and ethnicity, which are demographic characteristics that tend to be associated with consumer activism behaviors (Baek, 2010; Copeland, 2014a; Micheletti & Stolle, 2012a). Additionally, our recruitment effort focused on sampling different consumer activism behaviors, similar to Study 1 (see Table 2), and allowed both lower and higher commitment threshold activist behaviors to be represented in our data (Barry et al., 2022). This is important to ensure that the proposed scale is generalizable to different forms of consumer activism. Consumer activism motivations are likely to differ between easy-to-adopt, low-effort behaviors and other forms of activism that require greater effort and commitment. Because consumers can engage in a myriad of activist-like behaviors, developing a scale that is not behavioral-dependent 105 is paramount, which is also an issue of previous scales that focused on boycotting motivation only (Klein et al., 2002, 2004; Suhud et al., 2017). Because the study of consumer activism motivation relies on participants’ cognitions associated with past personal experiences with some form of activist-like behaviors, those who had never engaged in any consumer activism behaviors (N = 655) were not allowed to take the survey. Also, as a data quality criterion (Cibelli, 2017), those who failed to commit to reading the questions carefully and providing throughout answers (N=80) were screened out from the survey. The survey was created on Qualtrics and administered online. After consenting to participate in the study, participants answered a battery of demographic questions that informed our quota sampling protocol. Next, they were prompted to read a short definition of consumer activism, which was pretested via cognitive interviews, and read as follows: “In this research, we are interested in actions people may take against a company (or companies) because of business practices that negatively impact issues (or problems) people care about.” Additional information was provided to clarify what would constitute a company and an issue in this research. Next, participants selected from a predefined list all activist-like behaviors they have ever used in the past, which contained an option to include additional behaviors. Behaviors were presented in random order. Subsequently, they reported the most recent time they took action and what activist-like behaviors they have most recently employed. Then, participants were asked to answer the measurement items. To do that, they were asked to think about the most recent consumer activism episode in which they participated. Participants received a small financial incentive upon survey completion. Following recent methodological recommendations (Carpenter, 2018), sample size was determined as a function of the number of scale measurement items, observing a minimum ratio 106 of 5 sample units per item. Considering the final list of items (Table 4) submitted for analysis, with 68 items, the final sample was N=408, which is above the lower sample size threshold (N=340) needed for the EFA. Sample Demographic Description The sample is demographically diverse across all measured variables, as demonstrated in Table 5. Additionally, our sampling protocol effectively sampled different activist-like behaviors, as reported by participants. As displayed in Table 6, two measures of behavior engagement were collected. The first is an inventory of all past activist-like behaviors recalled by participants. The second focuses on measuring the most recent forms of action consumers have used against a company. The most popular behavior is boycotting, which is congruent with previous studies (Baek, 2010; Copeland, 2014b; Stolle et al., 2005). In our sample, 61 percent of participants reported having boycotted a brand in the past, and for 48 percent of the sample, boycotting is the most recent form of action. Petition signing (40 percent), encouraging others to take action (39 percent), and social media sharing (34 percent) and posting (32 percent) are also highly prevalent behaviors. Not surprisingly, the most prevalent behaviors can be classified as lower commitment (see Barry et al., 2022). Among higher commitment behaviors, joining online activist groups (21 percent), writing a letter to government representatives (19 percent), blogging (13 percent), and protesting through the use of physical materials (12 percent) are the most commonly adopted forms of action. Additionally, we measured the elapsed time of participants’ most recent engagement in activist-like behaviors. As illustrated in Table 7, for more than 80 percent of the sample, the most recent episode of consumer activism happened less than two years ago. 107 Table 5. Sample Demographics Variable Descriptive Statistics Agea M=47.71; SD=17.44; Min=18; Max=84 Females 49.76% (N=203) a Gender Males 48.78% (N=199) Non-binary, non-conforming, and transgender 1.47% (N=6) White 70.34% (N=287) Black 12.99% (N=53) Ethnicity*a Latinos 17.16% (N=70) Other races/ethnicities 10.29% (N=42) No formal qualifications .25% (N=1) Less than high school 1.72% (N=7) High school diploma 28.26% (N=115) Technical/community college 19.90% (N=81) Education Undergraduate degree 29.73% (N=121) Doctorate degree 1.97% (N=8) Graduate degree 18.18% (N=74) Not reported .25% (N=1) Less than $10,000 6.37% (N=26) $10,000 to $59,999 46.32% (N=189) Income $60,000 to $99,999 26.72% (N=109) $100,000 to $149,999 12.5% (N=51) More than $149,999 8.09% (N=33) Extremely conservative 3.19% (N=13) Conservative 11.77% (N=48) Slightly conservative 9.31% (N=38) Political ideology Moderate 31.37% (N=128) Slightly liberal 11.77% (N=48) Liberal 20.83 (N=85) Extremely liberal 11.77% (N=48) N=408. Note. *Multiple choice: total can be above 100%. aVariables used for quota sampling. 108 Table 6. Sample Proportion of Activist-Like Behaviors Past Actions Most Recent Action(s) Behaviors % N % N Lower commitment Signed a petition against a company 39.95 163 17.40 71 Wrote a social media post against a 31.86 130 17.40 71 company Shared content on social media 33.82 138 19.12 78 against a company Donated money to an organization that could take action against a 17.40 71 9.31 38 company Encouraged other people to take 39.22 160 18.38 75 action against a company Boycotted (stop purchasing from) a 61.03 249 48.28 197 company Higher commitment Picketed or participated in a protest 9.80 40 3.92 16 against a company Protested against a company using physical materials, such as t-shirts, 11.76 48 5.88 24 hats, bumper stickers or yard signs Wrote a letter to or called my government representative asking for 18.63 76 8.82 36 action against a company Wrote a blog post against a company 12.50 51 3.92 16 Joined organization(s) or group(s) 11.03 45 3.92 16 against a company Joined online/social media group(s) 21.32 87 8.33 34 against a company Others 3.43 14 2.45 10 N=408. Note. Question-wording for past action: Using the list below, please select all strategies you have used in the past to take action against companies because of unethical or controversial business decisions or business practices that impact issues (or problems) that you care about. Question-wording for most recent action(s): Considering the most recent time you took action, what action(s) did you take? Multiple choice question and total can be above 100%. 109 Table 7. Sample Proportion of Activist-Like Behavior Frequency Timeframe % N Less than 1 month ago 23.40 95 Less than 6 months ago 24.63 100 Less than 1 year ago 17.24 70 Less than 2 years ago 15.76 64 2 or more years ago 18.97 77 N=406. Note. Item missing for two respondents. Measures Measurement items were measured via seven-point Likert scale anchored on strongly disagree and strongly agree. Items were inspected for item missingness, outliers, and normality violation. No outliers were detected. Item missing was observed for two respondents only for one measurement item out of 68 items, and mean imputation was used to resolve this minor issue. As much as parallel analysis and principal factor axis are techniques somewhat robust to normality violations (Li et al., 2020), skewness and kurtosis were assessed. Skewness values ranged from - 1.37 and .39, and kurtosis values ranged from -1.35 and 1.46, which jointly suggest that the assumption of normality is acceptable (Ryu, 2011). Thus, we proceeded with our analysis. Results First, we inspected the data to determine if it was appropriate to explore it via factor analysis. The correlation matrix suggests that items measuring the same motivational dimension correlate highly with each other, which is visually represented by the dark blue squares that appear along the main diagonal (Figure 2). By contrast, the items measuring different dimensions present notably weaker correlations, especially between brand punishment (items 1 to 13) and other dimensions. This could suggest the presence of multiple factors in our data that might be correlated with each other. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy of .97 and Barlett’s test of sphericity (𝜒 2 = 26186.42, df = 2278, p< .001) rendered relevance to the FA approach. With that, 110 we proceed with the EFA analysis. Figure 2. Correlation Matrix N = 408. The scree plot suggests the presence of two factors, while PA indicates five factors. Figure 3 illustrates the scree plot and PA results. Our earlier theorization corroborates a five- factor solution. However, a seven-factor solution is possible because two factors, network solidarity and virtuous self, could be represented by two subdimensions. Therefore, two-, five-, and seven-factor solutions were submitted to an EFA. In addition, we examined alternative models, ranging from one to eight factors, as Carpenter (2018) recommended. 111 Figure 3. Screeplot of Eigenvalues with Parallel Analysis N = 408. The main goal of EFA is to explain the largest proportion of variance while retaining as fewer interpretable factors as possible. One-, two-, and three-factor solutions explained 39, 51, and 56 percent of the variance, respectively, representing somewhat low amounts of explained variance and not ideal for rendering this a valuable measurement scale in the social sciences (Carpenter, 2018). In the two-factor solution, the first identified factor represented business punishment, and the second represented a catch-all for all other measurement items. A five- factor approach increased the explained variance to 64 percent while creating meaningful, theory-convergent latent factors. A seven-factor model explained 67% of the variance, representing a slight increase in the model's explanatory power of 3% relative to five factors at the expense of retaining two more factors, representing a 40% increase in scale length. Other alternative solutions with four, six, and eight factors explained 61, 66, and 68 percent of the variance but generated hard-to-interpret factors. Therefore, the five-factor solution is retained and presented in Table 8, with primary loadings ranging from .51 to .93 and Cronbach’s alpha 112 ranging from .91 to .97. Table 8. Initial Exploratory Factor Analysis Results Measurement Items Factors Mean h2 I took action because… 1 2 3 4 5 4.22 1. I wanted to shame the company 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.72 -0.02 0.61 [2.07] 3.36 2. I wanted to harm the company 0.04 -0.15 -0.05 0.80 0.08 0.65 [2.06] 3.39 3. I wanted to offend the company 0.11 -0.19 -0.04 0.74 0.13 0.60 [2.03] 4. I wanted to create a negative 3.99 0.05 0.05 -0.06 0.83 -0.01 0.69 outcome for the company [2.06] 5. I wanted to punish the company 4.14 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.74 0.03 0.62 in some way [2.01] 6. I wanted to tarnish the company's 3.79 0.02 -0.04 0.04 0.84 0.01 0.72 reputation [2.06] 7. I wanted to damage the 3.71 0.02 -0.06 0.03 0.84 0.02 0.72 company's image [2.04] 8. I wanted to denigrate the 3.53 0.13 -0.06 -0.04 0.83 -0.01 0.70 company's name [2.00] 9. I wanted to hurt the company's 4.11 -0.06 0.06 0.00 0.87 -0.03 0.74 profits [2.14] 10. I wanted to affect the company's 4.30 -0.10 0.10 0.02 0.84 -0.01 0.71 bottom line [2.07] 11. I wanted to hit the company's 4.29 -0.08 0.14 0.01 0.85 -0.04 0.73 pocket [2.17] 12. I wanted to hit the company in 4.29 -0.14 0.19 0.06 0.84 -0.08 0.72 their wallet [2.15] 13. I wanted to negatively affect the 4.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.88 0.00 0.78 company's market position [2.07] 14. I wanted to incentivize the 5.30 -0.04 0.72 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.53 company to change its practices [1.75] 15. I wanted to force the company 5.24 -0.04 0.69 -0.03 0.11 0.05 0.49 to adjust its way of doing business [1.73] 16. I wanted to nudge the company 5.37 0.02 0.77 -0.07 -0.02 0.04 0.58 in the right direction [1.60] 17. I wanted to hold the company 5.56 -0.01 0.75 0.09 0.10 -0.15 0.57 accountable [1.60] 18. I wanted to help the company to 5.50 -0.03 0.88 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 0.66 change its behaviors [1.62] 19. I wanted the company to adjust 5.62 -0.03 0.93 -0.04 0.02 -0.06 0.75 its practices [1.51] 20. I wanted the company to 5.71 implement changes in the right 0.02 0.88 -0.06 -0.07 -0.02 0.69 [1.50] direction 21. I wanted the company to 5.63 0.01 0.82 -0.06 -0.04 0.05 0.65 acknowledge its mistakes [1.58] 113 Table 8 (cont’d) 22. I wanted the company to 5.67 -0.06 0.92 -0.02 -0.03 -0.03 0.74 reevaluate its actions/decisions [1.54] 23. I wanted to help the company 5.47 -0.06 0.85 -0.10 -0.05 0.09 0.62 see its mistakes [1.65] 24. I wanted to force the company 5.40 -0.02 0.80 0.01 0.10 -0.04 0.63 to recognize its misconduct [1.65] 25. I wanted to contribute to 5.38 building a better world by holding 0.12 0.77 0.03 0.02 -0.14 0.65 [1.64] the company accountable 26. I had a shared responsibility to 4.90 0.12 -0.13 0.72 0.02 0.02 0.55 hold the company accountable [1.77] 27. It was my civic duty to voice 5.07 my concerns when the company 0.00 0.08 0.79 -0.06 -0.07 0.63 [1.67] engaged in unethical behaviors 28. I felt responsible for doing 5.15 something when the company -0.08 0.05 0.80 -0.01 -0.02 0.60 [1.66] violated an important issue 29. I think it was my duty to call it 5.19 out when the company behaved 0.02 -0.02 0.82 0.03 -0.01 0.67 [1.66] unethically 30. I think it was my obligation to 5.19 stand up against a corporate 0.07 -0.04 0.89 0.05 -0.08 0.75 [1.69] wrongdoing 31. I felt personally responsible to 4.81 speak up when the company -0.05 -0.10 0.82 -0.07 0.02 0.52 [1.72] misbehaved 32. I think it was my responsibility 4.98 to act against a corporate 0.09 -0.09 0.79 0.04 -0.04 0.60 [1.76] transgression 33. I needed to do something when 5.36 I learned that the company crossed -0.02 0.12 0.81 -0.03 -0.12 0.65 [1.58] certain ethical boundaries 34. I had to stick up against a 5.24 corporate action that violated an 0.12 0.19 0.65 0.02 -0.17 0.60 [1.62] important issue 5.05 35. I considered it my personal duty -0.07 -0.04 0.79 0.10 0.06 0.63 [1.73] 4.87 36. It was my duty -0.05 -0.09 0.86 0.02 -0.01 0.60 [1.78] 5.19 37. It was my moral obligation -0.03 -0.02 0.76 -0.01 0.09 0.62 [1.71] 5.29 38. It was my ethical obligation -0.02 -0.03 0.83 0.01 0.02 0.65 [1.65] 39. I felt solidarity with those 5.06 0.70 0.03 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.67 affected by the company [1.77] 40. I felt empathy for those affected 5.44 0.52 0.30 0.05 -0.04 0.00 0.59 by the company [1.61] 41. I felt compassion for those 5.46 0.53 0.41 0.02 -0.07 -0.07 0.65 affected by the company [1.61] 42. I cared about those affected by 5.36 0.59 0.26 0.14 -0.11 -0.08 0.66 the company [1.68] 114 Table 8 (cont’d) 43. I felt respect for those affected 5.24 0.55 0.18 0.08 -0.01 0.06 0.59 by the company [1.66] 44. I wanted to show my support 5.35 0.56 0.29 0.07 -0.05 -0.02 0.64 for those affected by the company [1.64] 45. I felt a sense of “brotherhood” 4.82 or “sisterhood” with those affected 0.79 -0.09 -0.01 0.01 0.09 0.63 [1.89] by the company 46. I stood united with those 5.2 0.67 0.03 0.23 -0.01 -0.06 0.67 affected by the company [1.74] 47. I felt solidarity with others who 4.94 0.92 -0.13 -0.02 0.01 0.00 0.69 also took action [1.81] 48. I wanted to establish solidarity 4.81 0.89 -0.09 -0.06 0.02 0.08 0.72 with others who also took action [1.80] 49. I felt empathy for others who 4.96 0.79 0.03 -0.04 0.01 0.03 0.65 also took action [1.80] 50. I wanted to cooperate with 4.9 0.89 -0.18 -0.01 0.07 0.04 0.68 others who also took action [1.85] 51. I felt respect for others who also 5.37 0.81 0.13 -0.07 0.01 -0.06 0.67 took action [1.71] 52. I wanted to back up others who 5.14 0.86 0.02 -0.05 0.03 -0.02 0.70 also took action [1.72] 53. I wanted to support others who 5.13 0.89 0.02 -0.08 -0.02 0.03 0.75 also took action [1.78] 54. I felt a sense of “brotherhood” 4.62 or “sisterhood” with others who 0.87 -0.12 -0.03 0.06 0.02 0.66 [1.86] also took action 55. I stood united with others who 5.06 0.93 -0.05 -0.02 -0.01 -0.03 0.75 also took action [1.77] 56. I wanted to have a clear 4.84 -0.05 0.09 -0.07 0.00 0.77 0.56 conscience [1.92] 57. I wanted to be in a good 4.75 0.06 -0.01 -0.06 -0.01 0.76 0.57 headspace [1.70] 58. I wanted to feel better about 4.32 -0.02 -0.13 -0.17 0.10 0.91 0.61 myself [1.94] 59. I wanted to feel good about 4.33 0.00 -0.15 -0.10 0.08 0.87 0.59 myself [1.99] 60. I wanted my actions to align 5.48 -0.02 0.27 0.21 -0.07 0.41 0.56 with my values [1.57] 61. It was rewarding to act 5.2 -0.07 0.20 0.28 -0.02 0.45 0.57 consistently with my moral beliefs [1.63] 62. I wanted to behave 5.13 harmoniously with my moral 0.02 0.17 0.14 0.03 0.55 0.62 [1.68] principles 63. I wanted to demonstrate support 5.51 0.07 0.32 0.16 -0.03 0.33 0.57 for the issues I care about [1.54] 64. It was important to signal my 4.65 0.10 -0.05 0.04 -0.03 0.67 0.52 values to others [1.86] 115 Table 8 (cont’d) 65. I wanted to express my 5.44 commitment to issues that are 0.01 0.18 0.28 -0.04 0.38 0.55 [1.57] important to me 66. I wanted to display my moral 4.93 0.06 -0.08 0.08 -0.08 0.72 0.56 beliefs [1.72] 67. It was satisfying to express 5.39 0.07 0.09 0.14 0.02 0.51 0.53 support for the issues I value [1.50] 68. I wanted to express my moral 5.16 -0.04 0.15 0.18 -0.03 0.59 0.62 principles [1.67] Eigenvalue 10.5 9.39 9.00 8.91 5.62 43.42 % variance explained 15% 14% 13% 13% 8% 64% Cronbach's 𝛼 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.91 N=408. Note. Standard deviations are presented between squared brackets. Skewness values ranged from -1.37 and .39. Kurtosis values ranged from -1.35 and 1.46. Bold values indicate factors loadings above the cutoff point of .50. Italicized values indicate cross-loading issues in which the difference between the primary loading and adjacent loadings are less than .15. Principal factor axis with Promax factor rotation employed. Variables were measured using a 7-point Likert scale. As shown in Table 8, of the 68 items, only five were excluded for failing to meet the aforementioned primary loadings and cross-loadings requirements. This reveals that our methodological procedure in developing a clear concept and measurement items was successful. For this same reason, it also produced a long list of acceptable items, which can be problematic for future scale applications, especially when researchers and practitioners are pressured to reduce survey costs associated with questionnaire length and increase respondents’ motivation to mitigate data quality issues (Carpenter, 2018; DeVellis, 2012; Stanton et al., 2002). Therefore, we engaged in scale-length optimization (Carpenter, 2018; DeVellis, 2012). In this process, the theoretical convergence of items and the statistical properties of the scale were observed to ensure that the retained items within each latent factor would represent the conceptual breadth of each consumer activism motivation while also meeting the principles of simple factor structure (Carpenter, 2018; DeVellis, 2012; Stanton et al., 2002). In the scale-length optimization phase, our goal was to reduce the number of 116 measurement items per factor to four and stay above the minimum threshold of 3 items per factor (DeVellis, 2012; Kline, 2015; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). That is because measurement models, such as CFA, become underidentified, i.e., have negative degrees of freedom, with less than three items per factor (Kline, 2015). Therefore, it is recommended that each factor is indicated by three to five items (Kline, 2015). Because our scale has retained five factors, we decided to limit the number of items per factor to four and keep the total number of items to 20. Importantly, item selection should not aim only to maximize internal consistency (Stanton et al., 2002). Items should be examined for content validity and ensure they represent the conceptual definition and capture its conceptual breadth (Stanton et al., 2002). The 20 retained items are presented in Table 9. Table 9. Final Exploratory Factor Analysis Results of the Consumer Activism Motivation Scale (CAMS) Measurement Items Factors h2 I took action because… 1 2 3 4 5 Brand Punishment 6. I wanted to tarnish the company's 0.84 -0.03 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.73 reputation 7. I wanted to damage the company's image 0.85 0.01 -0.03 0.00 0.06 0.74 9. I wanted to hurt the company's profits 0.82 0.03 0.03 -0.04 -0.05 0.66 13. I wanted to negatively affect the 0.87 0.00 0.02 0.02 -0.02 0.76 company's market position Business Reformation 19. I wanted the company to adjust its 0.06 0.87 0.00 0.03 -0.07 0.74 practices 20. I wanted the company to implement -0.03 0.85 -0.05 0.04 0.01 0.71 changes in the right direction 21. I wanted the company to acknowledge -0.01 0.72 -0.01 0.03 0.11 0.62 its mistakes 22. I wanted the company to reevaluate its 0.00 0.84 0.11 -0.07 -0.03 0.75 actions/decisions 117 Table 9 (cont’d) Consumer Duty 28. I felt responsible for doing something when the company violated an important -0.02 0.07 0.70 -0.07 0.07 0.56 issue 29. I think it was my duty to call it out 0.02 -0.03 0.76 0.05 0.05 0.65 when the company behaved unethically 30. I think it was my obligation to stand up 0.05 -0.05 0.85 0.06 -0.01 0.75 against a corporate wrongdoing 33. I needed to do something when I learned that the company crossed certain -0.02 0.08 0.82 -0.01 -0.09 0.66 ethical boundaries Network Solidarity 39. I felt solidarity with those affected by 0.00 0.09 0.11 0.65 0.04 0.64 the company 45. I felt a sense of “brotherhood” or “sisterhood” with those affected by the 0.00 -0.06 0.04 0.77 0.07 0.65 company 47. I felt solidarity with others who also 0.00 -0.03 -0.02 0.87 -0.03 0.67 took action 55. I stood united with others who also 0.00 0.06 -0.06 0.88 -0.03 0.73 took action Virtuous Self 56. I wanted to have a clear conscience 0.01 0.11 -0.03 -0.06 0.72 0.53 59. I wanted to feel good about myself 0.08 -0.08 -0.09 0.02 0.75 0.51 64. It was important to signal my values to -0.03 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.71 0.55 others 66. I wanted to display my moral beliefs -0.07 -0.03 0.14 0.01 0.65 0.52 Eigenvalue 2.89 2.85 2.65 2.64 2.10 13.13 % variance explained 14% 14% 13% 13% 11% 65% Cronbach's 𝛼 0.91 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.82 N=408. Note. Bold values indicate factors loadings above the cutoff point of .50. Principal factor axis with Promax factor rotation employed. Below, we explain our item selection decisions: Brand punishment, Factor 1, encompasses the reputational and financial corporate punishment that activists may seek. Therefore, we selected the items with the highest loadings that illustrated both forms of punishment – items 6 and 7 for reputational and 9 and 13 for financial punishment. 118 Business reformation, Factor 2, emphasizes the pursuit of corporate misconduct acknowledgment and corporate behavior change. Thus, the items with the highest loadings were selected, which also emphasized this meaning gradation more directly – items 21 and 22 emphasized corporate acknowledgment, and items 19 and 20 focused on corporate behavior change. Items 21 and 23 have very similar loadings, .82 and .85, so item 21 was selected because it more directly focuses on corporate acknowledgment. Next, consumer duty, Factor 3, relates to the moral obligation triggered by an unethical corporate practice, and items with the highest loadings were selected – items 28, 29, 30, and 33. Although items 36 and 38 also have similar loadings as the items selected, they were not retained because they only focus on the activist duty without characterizing the corporate behavior. For network solidarity, Factor 4, item 41 did not pass the initial cutoff point because of cross-loadings (see Table 8). Therefore, from the remaining items, we selected the four items with the highest loadings to represent the network solidarity toward those impacted by the business (victims) – items 39 and 45, and with others who also took action (other activists) – items 47 and 55. Last, for Virtuous self, Factor 5, four items did not meet our initial statistical requirements – items 60, 61, 63, and 65. The remaining items were examined to ensure that the inward and outward virtue-signaling motivational aspects would be represented in the final scale. Items 56 and 59 were retained to represent the inward aspect of this motivational factor. Items 58 and 59 had the highest loadings. However, both items are highly redundant, which is problematic for scale optimization since their joint retention would reduce the latent factor conceptual breadth (Stanton et al., 2002). Based on the qualitative phase (Study 1), “feel good” seems to be a more powerful and precise statement than feeling better; thus, item 59 is retained. For the 119 outward signaling aspect, items 64 and 66 were retained and represent the items with the highest loadings within this pool. The 20-item operationalization was submitted to a final EFA (see Table 9). The final scale represented an optimal solution across all criteria examined. The explained variance of 65 percent remained virtually the same, if not better, than the initial five-factor solution. Primary factors loadings ranged from .65 to .88, and Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .82 to .91. Factor correlations, see Table 10, reveal that factors tend to be associated, which underscores our decision to use an oblique rotation is warranted. Table 10. Factor Correlations from Final Exploratory Factor Analysis Brand Business Consumer Network Virtuous Punishment Reformation Duty Solidarity Self Brand 1.00 Punishment Business 0.10 1.00 Reformation Consumer 0.26 0.65 1.00 Duty Network 0.23 0.52 0.61 1.00 Solidarity Virtuous 0.28 0.47 0.59 0.58 1.00 Self N=408. Discussion In Study 2, we analyzed the responses from consumer activists (N=408) via a quota sampling technique to demographically represent the US population’s age, racial, and gender distributions. On the basis of our theoretical definition of consumer activism motivations, we developed a 20-item scale, the Consumer Activism Motivation Scale (CAMS), to reliably measure the pre-identified motivational dimensions conceptualized in Study 1. The EFA results demonstrate that consumer activism motivations can be represented and 120 measured by five personal goals, which are the five latent factors in our final model: brand punishment, business reformation, consumer duty, network solidarity, and virtuous self. Measurement reliability is also acceptable at a Cronbach’s 𝛼 threshold of .80. This demonstrates that the scale is internally consistent, i.e., that more than 80 percent of the observed variability in participants’ scores is caused by true variation in their unobserved personal goals. Congruent with our qualitative findings, our results show that these five personal goals are interrelated motivational dimensions and that consumer activism is, indeed, a multi-dimensional construct. Brand Punishment Our findings show that consumers may take action to punish brands financially or reputationally due to a perceived brand transgression. Brand punishment is weakly correlated with the other dimensions, which suggests that consumers motivated by a brand punishing goal do not systematically seek to fulfill other personal goals via activism. The desire to punish brands for their unethical misdeeds or irresponsible conduct is regarded as an essential motivational factor in the context of boycotts (Friedman, 1991, 1995; Hoffmann, 2011; John & Klein, 2003; Kozinets & Handelman, 2004), including religious boycotts (Abosag & F., 2014), and online consumer activism (Braunsberger & Buckler, 2011; Makarem & Jae, 2016). However, previous studies have conflated personal goals and emotional arousal, such as anger expression, together as a unified motivational construct (Klein et al., 2002; Pandey et al., 2021; Suhud et al., 2017). For instance, Klein et al. (2002) conceptualized brand punishment as an expressive boycott motivation. Our study shows that such conceptualization may not be adequate because brand punishment is a distinct motivational concept from expressive action, which is best captured by virtuous self goal. Similarly, in a study about an Indonesian boycott of Israeli products, Suhud et al. (2017) operationalized a measure of expressive boycott motivation against Israel by conflating three items measuring desire to 121 punish, express anger, and guilt avoidance. Pandey et al. (2021) have also conflated brand punishment with emotional arousal and product scarcity as a single motivational concept, which our study does not support theoretically or empirically. Thus, this study is the first to statistically demonstrate that brand punishment can be conceptualized as a personal goal separate from emotional arousal associated with an anger-expressive desire. Our findings are also relevant to the product and service failure literature and the broad literature on performance-related brand transgressions (Aaker et al., 2004; Aggarwal, 2004; Fetscherin & Sampedro, 2019; Grégoire et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Khamitov et al., 2020; Sinha & Lu, 2016). A performance-related brand transgression can be defined as “disconfirming evidence of the partner’s intentions to act according to the terms of the relationship contract” (p. 3) and can have a direct impact on perceived brand quality (Aaker et al., 2004). These are typically related to product malfunction, product recall, or a lousy service experience (Fetscherin & Sampedro, 2019). This literature shows that consumers may cope with performance-related brand transgressions via different strategies: including brand avoidance, brand switching, complaining, and revenge-seeking behaviors. Desire for revenge, also called retaliation, is defined as the need to punish, harm, cause damage, or create an inconvenience to a company in retribution for the damages caused to the customer (Grégoire et al., 2009, 2018; Grégoire & Fisher, 2008). Our study results demonstrate that similar brand punishment goals can also be activated in the context of consumer activism in response to a value-related, issue-violating corporate transgression. Business Reformation Consumers are also motivated to incentivize business changes or the acknowledgment (and cessation) of corporate wrongdoings. Business reformation entails a quest for changing business and marketplace norms, which begins with corporate acknowledgment that a problem 122 exists. This personal goal bears some conceptual resemblance with instrumentally-motivated boycotts (Friedman, 1985, 1991, 1995, 2002; John & Klein, 2003) and motivation to make a difference (Klein et al., 2004). As earlier discussed (see Chapter 4), Friedman (1985, 1991) proposes a dichotomous way to functionally classify boycotts: “While many appear to have practical ends in mind, such as labor actions seeking union recognition (instrumental boycotts), others seem more concerned with venting the frustrations of the protesting group (expressive boycotts)” (p. 153). Over the past 20 years, Friedman’s taxonomy has informed many boycott studies in conceptualizing boycott campaigns and participants’ motivations orthogonally. While some boycotters are instrumentally motivated, others are assumed to perceive boycotting as a self-expressive platform. Congruently, our findings demonstrate that consumer activists are motivated by practical goals, such as business reformation. However, our study empirically demonstrates that instrumental and expressive action are not orthogonal. Participants can be highly motivated to change corporate practices and, at the same time, be energized to express their values and moral beliefs (virtuous self), as both factors are moderately correlated (r=.47, see Table 10). Additionally, we have statistically shown that business reformation can be conceptualized as a personal goal separate from agency or efficacy beliefs. Previous studies have frequently confounded both constructs to operationalize motivational scales in the context of consumer boycotts (Klein et al., 2002, 2004; Suhud et al., 2017 – with a few exceptions (e.g., Braunsberger & Buckler, 2011; Hoffmann, 2011). For instance, Klein et al. (2004) extended Friedman's (1985, 1991) conceptualization. They proposed a scale to measure boycotters’ motivation to make a difference, defined as “boycotters […] instrumental motivation to change the target firm’s behavior and/or to signal to the firm and others the necessity of appropriate conduct” (p. 96). The 123 authors propose that such motivation is influenced by perceived efficacy. However, their operationalization conflates survey items that indicate perceived boycott efficacy and desire to make a difference together, which is unwarranted given that both constructs are conceptually different and are assumed to have a causal relationship. Consumer Duty Our results also indicate that consumers can be motivated to hold corporations accountable due to consumers’ perceived moral responsibility to act and uphold certain moral values. By taking action, consumer activists aim to fulfill a personal duty or ethical need to call companies out when corporate unethical behaviors are detected. As much as past studies have hinted at this consumer activism goal dimension, our study, to the best of our knowledge, is the first to conceptualize and propose a measurement operationalization for it. Consumer activism has been long conceptualized as a morally-driven, responsibility- taking behavior in the political consumerism literature (Micheletti, 2003). This has been recently extended to the context of pro-environment boycotts (Nguyen et al., 2018), where researchers have found, through in-depth interviews, that boycotters are motivated by personal responsibility and moral obligation. This colors consumer activism slightly differently as an opportunity for individuals to do their part, distinct from punishing a brand or reforming business practices. Our findings show that although distinct, consumer duty and business reformation are moderately correlated (r=.65, see Table 10), which indicates that both motivations tend to occur together. As discussed by Campbell & Winterich (2018), consumers have moral expectations concerning corporate conduct, called marketplace morality. Morality is conceptualized as a social system of values that define what is right or wrong from which individuals create norms of acceptable and unacceptable conduct and can serve as a mechanism of self-interest regulation (Haidt, 2008). Marketplace morality is the application of moral expectations within the context 124 of exchange-based marketplace relationships. The authors argue that in exchange-based relationships, such as the relationship between companies with their various stakeholders, there is a higher acceptance of self-interest behaviors at the expense of social well-being. Still, as much as self-interest is expected among free-market agents, these are not free from moral expectations created by consumers’ marketplace morality. Recent studies further investigated the role of morality in the context of boycotting and demonstrated that boycotting and buycotting are driven by individualizing and binding moral values (Fernandes, 2020; Shim et al., 2021). Individualizing moral values are related to empathy, preventing harm to others, and fairness, while binding moral focus on the values that bind individuals together on stable units, such as stability, safety, authority, and group loyalty. Fernandes (2020) shows that liberals are more likely to act because of a perceived violation of individualizing moral values. In contrast, conservatives respond more negatively to a binding moral violation. Shim et al. (2021) show that individualizing and binding moral violations create boycott intention via negative emotional arousal. Our study extends these previous findings by showing that moral violations motivate consumers to engage in activism by activating their personal responsibility (personal goal) to take action, namely, consumer duty. Network Solidarity Consumer activism can also be distinctively motivated by consumers’ goal to demonstrate solidarity and empathy toward others affected by unethical corporate decisions (between-group solidarity) and those also taking action (activist in-group solidarity). Our original conceptualization wove two forms of network solidarity: in-group and between-group solidarity (see Chapters 4 and 5). This conceptualization stems from two independent lines of research: The role of collective identity among activists in building and supporting collective actions (Kozinets & Handelman, 2004; Melucci, 1995; Moskalenko & Mccauley, 2009) and the role of 125 empathy and solidarity toward the victims of social, political, environmental, and corporate violations (Anderl, 2022; Bernard, 2017; Hunt & Benford, 2004; Kim, 2021; Neufeld et al., 2019; Rahbari, 2021; Routledge et al., 2007; Xie & Bagozzi, 2019). Our findings demonstrate that although different forms of network solidarity exist, they can be conceptualized and measured more parsimoniously as a single motivation factor that emerges from consumers’ identification with other activists and those whom corporate unethical behaviors have victimized. Neufeld et al. (2019) have recently proposed a scale to measure between-group network solidarity. The authors demonstrated this to be a vital motivational driver in political and social activism, namely political solidarity. Our study is the first to extend such findings to the context of consumer activism and to incorporate the concept of in-group solidarity into it. Network solidarity represents an original contribution to the study of consumer activist motivations. As presented in Chapter 4, recent studies have shown that empathy and other- regarding virtues are personality traits that increase consumer activism intentions (Xie & Bagozzi, 2019). Our findings extend this line of research by showing that in-group and between- group empathy and solidarity jointly create a context-specific, personally motivating goal that energizes consumers to act. As shown in Table 10, network solidarity tends to occur together with business reformation and consumer duty (r =.52 and .61). It does not seem to be frequently activated with brand punishment (r =.23). Virtuous Self Our results also demonstrate that consumer activists may be uniquely motivated by a personal goal to signal their moral values to themselves (inward signaling) and others (outward signaling). As previously mentioned, the notion that consumers are motivated toward action to express a negative emotional state created by a brand transgression, to enhance or maintain their 126 self-concept, clear their conscience, or to be admired by others and gain social approval is not new (Braunsberger & Buckler, 2011; Glazer et al., 2010; Hoffmann, 2013; John & Klein, 2003; Klein et al., 2002, 2004; Kozinets & Handelman, 1998; Smith, 1990). The first element that sets our measurement scale apart from previous studies is the identification of virtue signaling as the motivating personal goal that explains why consumers are driven toward activism for expressive (Friedman, 1985, 1991, 1995), self-enhancement (John & Klein, 2003; Klein et al., 2002, 2004), or clean hands needs (Smith, 1990). Inward signaling is a personal goal to achieve emotional well-being through cognitive consistency, i.e., to feel good about oneself and have a clear conscience. Outward signaling represents an expressive personal goal of signaling to others one’s moral beliefs and values, which could be influenced by self- enhancement needs. Second, our measurement scale is unique in its effort to operationalize virtuous self from the perspective of the consumer activist, which was achieved through multiple in-depth interviews with consumer activists (see Study 1). This enabled us to achieve greater conceptual clarity. In conceptualizing similar motivational dimensions, idiosyncratically labeled as expressive motivation, clean hands, or self-enhancement, prior studies (Klein et al., 2002, 2004; Olson & Park, 2019; Suhud et al., 2017) have employed items that do not render to a clear understanding of what is being measured. For instance, Klein and colleagues (2002, 2004) included measures related to subjective normative influence (Cialdini et al., 1990; Yzer, 2013) to measure clean hands and self-enhancement motivations, respectively. This created an issue of content and construct validity. The proposed conceptualization and measurement operationalization of virtuous self as a personal goal proposed in this research adds to this body of knowledge by adding conceptual 127 clarity to this motivational dimension, which is vital in the social science (Bergkvist & Langner, 2019; Suddaby, 2010; Wacker, 2008). Equally important, this is achieved by ensuring that our scientific conceptualization is congruent with the real-world experiences of activists (see Study 1), which is absent from prior scale development attempts. 128 CHAPTER EIGHT: STUDY 3 – CONFIRMATORY QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND SCALE VALIDITY Study 2 explored the latent structure of consumer activists’ personally motivating goals. This structure is represented by five intercorrelated motivational goals represented by 20 measurement items, which conforms with our qualitative findings (see Study 1). In essence, Study 2 allowed us to generate a hypothesis about the relationship between the five unobserved motivational factors and the 20 observable measurement items – the Consumer Activism Motivation Scale (CAMS). This was accomplished through EFA. However, because EFA models have infinitely many solutions, it is not well-suited for confirming whether our retained model is well-suited to represent the measurement latent structure (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Thus, in Study 3, our focus shifts toward formally testing the hypothesized latent structure. Study 3 aims are threefold. First, we aim to statistically test the hypothesized latent structure of the CAMS by submitting the final measurement scale to a new, independent sample and examining the model performance using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Second, we aim to assess CAMS’ critical measurement properties, which includes checking the scale unidimensionality and between group measurement invariance. Last, we aim to assess CAMS’ measurement validity in terms of convergence, discriminant, nomological, and predicitive validity. Methods Analytical Approach A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was estimated via maximum likelihood using the lavaan R package (Rosseel, 2012) to formally test the hypothesized latent and observed structure of the measurement scale. CFA uses a latent variable modeling framework to examine the 129 relationship between latent constructs and observable indicators (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). In scale development, CFA can be employed to validate EFA results based on data collected from a new, independent sample (Kline, 2015). The requirement of sample independence has been widely endorsed in the literature to prevent CFA results from capitalizing on chance variation if the same sample is utilized (Kline, 2015). Sample Size As much as CFA models require larger samples, there is no single standard approach to determine the required sample size (Kline, 2015). While some methodologists have proposed a minimum sample size threshold, for example, that CFA studies should not be conducted with less than N=200, others have recommended that sample size should be a function of model complexity (Kline, 2015). The latter approach has received stronger support based on data simulation results (Wolf et al., 2013), of which, Jackson's (2003) sample size estimation rule has become one of the most popular procedures among researchers and the default technique in statistical software solutions (Kline, 2015). It posits that CFA sample size should be a function of the number of free model parameters and that each free parameter should contribute to the overall sample size with no less than five sample units. The study used N=458 complete survey responses to estimate the CFA model with 50 free parameters. Thus, our sample size is above the minimum threshold of N=250 and can be considered adequate for statistical estimation. Model Testing Besides adequate sample size, another premise for CFA estimation is that the model is identified. Model identification means that the model has positive degrees of freedom, defined by the difference between the number of unique observations present in the variance-covariance input and the number of parameters statistically estimated, also known as free model parameters (Kline, 2015). Our CFA model is identified with 160 degrees of freedom (see Table 16). 130 After ensuring that the model was identified, the CFA model was estimated, and model fit indexes were examined. The structural equation modeling approach, of which the latent variable modeling framework is part, includes a family of covariance-structure-based statistical techniques that takes as an input an observed variance-covariance matrix and attempts to recreate this matrix structure based on a set of predefined relationships among variables (Kline, 2015). Model fit indexes are measures that allow researchers to examine whether the estimated results are acceptably close to the observed set of relationships (Kline, 2015). The following indexes were conjointly used to assess model fit. The model chi-square test was examined to assess the null hypothesis of exact fit. However, model chi-square values tend to increase with sample size. For larger sample sizes, e.g., above N=300 (Kline, 2015), it can unwarrantedly lead to the rejection of the exact-fit hypothesis (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Kyriazos, 2018; Sharpe, 2015). Therefore, other fitting indexes should also be scrutinized. Thus, we also inspected the model chi-square and degrees of freedom ratio (Wheaton et al., 1977), for which ratio scores below three are used as a heuristic indication of acceptable fit. Additionally, we inspected the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), for which values equal or below .05 indicate acceptable fit, the standardized root mean square residual (SRMS), which indicates acceptable fit for values equal or below .08, and the Tucker-Lewis (TLI) and the comparative fit index (CFI), for which .95 is often used as a threshold of acceptable fit. Scale Measurement Properties Assessment The CFA technique was also used to examine the scale unidimensionality properties (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Unidimensionality entails that each measurement item is indicated (reflected) by a single latent construct (Gerbing & Anderson, 1984, 1988; Kline, 2013; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Additionally, unidimensionality can be further supported if the error terms are uncorrelated, except when these are theoretically justifiable (Gerbing & 131 Anderson, 1984, 1988; Kline, 2013; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Unidimensionality is a necessary condition for construct validity (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988) because it demonstrates that scale indicators have just one “thing” in common, the latent variable representing the construct of interest (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). When a CFA model is retained, and unidimensionality is established, we have evidence that the true scores associated with each measurement item representing the same latent variable are perfectly correlate with one another (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; Green et al., 1977; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011), also known as the model of congeneric tests (MCT) (Jöreskog, 1971). When unidimensionality cannot be assessed, it should be used as an indication that “the items do not successfully capture the construct” (Terblanceh & Boshoff, 2008. p. 109). If the MCT hypothesis is supported, we will also inspect more restrictive model assumptions concerning the measurement properties of the scale. More specifically, we will test whether 1) the true scores are measured with the same level of precision – model of congeneric tests with equal variances (MCTEV); 2) the true scores are measured in the same units of measurement – test of true score equivalent model (TSEM); and 3) whether they are measured in the same unit with the same level of precision – the model of parallel tests (MPT). These assumptions can be hierarchically tested by incrementally including restrictions to the MCT model. First, by constraining the error variance terms within the same latent variable to be equal (MCTEV). Next, by constraining the factor loadings to equality (TSEM). And last, if the aforementioned parameter restrictions are supported, fixing loadings and error variances to be the same across items indicated the same latent variable (MPT). A chi-square difference test is used to test these three hierarchically nested models, where a low p-value indicates that the model assumptions are too restrictive and not supported by the data (Kline, 2015; Raykov & 132 Marcoulides, 2011). Another important assessment of the scale measurement properties is to determine whether it can be used to measure the same construct across distinct groups, also known as multi-group measurement invariance (Kline, 2015). In this study, assessing the proposed scale for measurement invariance is relevant to understanding to what extent it can be used to compare consumer activism motivations between those who have engaged in lower- vs. higher- commitment activist-like behaviors. Measurement invariance is not an absolute test, but rather refers to an assessment of the degree to which the scores between two or more groups are comparable, namely, configural, weak, strong, and strict invariance (Kline, 2015; Meredith, 1993; Wu et al., 2007). Configural invariance is the least restrictive form of invariance and specifies that the latent factors are indicated by the same indicators in both groups without any parameter constraints. Weak invariance assumes that the latent factors have the same meaning in both groups, which is tested by imposing an equality constraint on factor loadings. Strong invariance establishes that both groups use the response scale similarly and that group means can be unbiasedly compared because they are not affected by different response styles, which is tested by imposing an equality constraint on the model intercepts. Strict invariance assumes all previous levels with the addition of error variance equality, which indicates that the latent factors are measured with the same level of precision across groups. Because invariance structures are based on hierarchically nested models, a chi-square difference test is used for model comparison, where a low p-value indicates that the model assumptions are too restrictive and not supported by the data (Kline, 2015; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). Measurement Validity With content validity being assessed in Study 1, via the panel of experts, Study 3 focuses on establishing acceptable construct and criterion validity for the proposed measurement. 133 Construct validity requires multiple layers of evidence and cannot be established with a single test, as it concerns the assessment of theoretically-supported relationships of the variables of interest (DeVellis, 2012; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). In this study, construct validity will be assessed in terms of convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity. Criterion validity refers to the relationship between the proposed construct and some empirical measure or standard that testifies to the practical usefulness of the construct (DeVellis, 2012; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). In this study, criterion validity will be examined in the context of predictive validity. Convergent and Discriminant Validity Convergent validity refers to the degree to which measures indicating the same construct, or concept, represented by a latent factor, are strongly related to one another (Bagozzi, 1981; Bagozzi & Foxall, 1996; D. T. Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Churchill, 1979; Terblanceh & Boshoff, 2008; Zaltman et al., 1982). On the other hand, discriminant validity can be established by showing that measures of distinct constructs, or concepts, represented by different latent factors, diverge (Bagozzi, 1981; Bagozzi & Foxall, 1996; D. T. Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Churchill, 1979; Rönkkö & Cho, 2022; Terblanceh & Boshoff, 2008; Zaltman et al., 1982). It is pertinent to note that discriminant validity has not been uniformly defined in the literature (Rönkkö & Cho, 2022). The definition we employ aligns with the original conceptualization of discriminant validation, which Campbell and Fiske (1959) illustrated using the measurement of personality traits as an example. “When a dimension of personality is hypothesized […] the proponent invariably has in mind distinctions between the new dimension and other constructs [or dimensions] already in use. One cannot define [a personality dimension] without implying distinctions, and the verification of these distinctions is an important part of the validation process” (p. 84). Thus, discriminant validity in this study plays a vital in assessing the degree to which the proposed personally motivating goals are truly distinct dimensions that represent a 134 holistic construct (Ab Hamid et al., 2017; Bagozzi & Phillips, 1982; Tanwar & Prasad, 2017; Terblanceh & Boshoff, 2008). The acceptable fit of an MCT model, as well as loadings above .5 and composite reliability coefficients above .7, were inspected as they represent necessary conditions to establish convergent validity (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011; Terblanceh & Boshoff, 2008). Also, we will examine the 95 percent confidence intervals of factor intercorrelations as a primary indication of discriminant validity, which is supported when the upper limit of the interval is below .8 (Rönkkö & Cho, 2022). Additionally, we employed the average variance extracted (AVE) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) and heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio (Henseler et al., 2015) methods to further validate scales with respect to their convergent and discriminant properties. The AVE (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) is estimated by taking the ratio between the sum of the squared loadings for a latent variable and the sum of this same value together with the sum of the variance of the error term for each latent variable indicator. Because the square loading represents the amount of variance in an indicator explained by the latent variable, when AVE is below the threshold of .5, it means that the amount of unexplained variance is greater than the variance explained by the construct. Therefore, AVE values of .5 or above are used as evidence of convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Additionally, the squared root of AVE is an indicator of discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) that is popular among researchers (Henseler et al., 2015; Rönkkö & Cho, 2022). The Fornell-Larcker test proposes that discriminant validity can be established when the correlations of a latent variable with the other latent variables in the model are lower than the squared root of its associated AVE value. The HTMT ratio (Henseler et al., 2015) is based on the multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) technique (D. T. Campbell & Fiske, 1959). The ratio can be obtained by dividing the average 135 heterotrait-heteromethod correlations by the average of the monotrait-monomethod correlations across each pair of latent variables. Thus, values lower than one indicate that the average correlation of items measuring two different constructs is smaller than the average correlation among the items used to measure the same construct. This suggests that the two constructs or latent factors are distinct (Henseler et al., 2015). Based on sensitivity tests in simulated data, an HTMT ratio of .85 has been proposed as a conservative upper threshold to establish discriminant validity, as it provides acceptable indication that the average correlation of items measuring two latent factors is smaller than the average correlations of items measuring the same latent factor (Henseler et al., 2015). Nomological Validity Nomological validity refers to establishing a theoretical network in which previously conceptualized relationships between the scale and other relevant constructs are statistically demonstrated (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; Mowen & Voss, 2008). Nomological validity was assessed via structural equation modeling (SEM) to formally test whether the identified constructs, in Chapter 4, properly reflect a set of theoretically derived relationships. Based on this prior conceptualization, we expect all five personal consumer activism goals to be influenced by three main antecedents, namely, issue involvement, brand hate, and consumer activism collective efficacy. Thus, the CAMS’ latent factors are treated as dependent variables and issue involvement, brand hate, and consumer activism collective efficacy are utilized as independent variables in the nomological model. As discussed earlier, multiple theories and concepts exist to explain human motivation (Ford, 1992). The proposed scale focuses on one type of motivation, personal goals. Personal goals are considered part of a motivational system and are likely influenced by other motivational constructs, such as emotional arousal, efficacy beliefs, and ego-involvement (Ford, 136 1992). The literature on consumer activism suggests that the issue involvement (Albrecht, Backhaus, et al., 2013; O’Cass & Griffin, 2006) is an antecedent of consumer activism participation intention, and it refers to the perceived self-relevance of an object (Zaichkowsky, 1985, 1994). Additionally, negative, arousing feelings against the violating brand have been shown to increase the likelihood of consumer activism via anger, contempt, and disgust (CAD), also jointly known as brand hate (Grappi et al., 2013; Romani et al., 2015). Moreover, perceived collective efficacy (Bandura, 2000) has been reported to positively influence engagement in consumer (Ji & Kim, 2020) and political activism (Lee, 2010). The role of anger and efficacy beliefs have also been theorized in Turner's (2007) anger-activism model in the context of social activism, thus corroborating the proposed nomological model. Additionally, based on the results from Studies 1 and 2 (see Chapters 5 and 6), we speculate that two consumer activism goals may be differently influenced by the proposed antecedents. First, it is possible that issue involvement may be less important in creating brand punishment relative to the other four goals. This is because brand punishment is a motivational dimension solely indicated by items that denote a desire to punish the violating brand without any expressed association with moral beliefs, ethical considerations, or desired changes that can be connected to a self-relevant issue. These associations are present in the other four dimensions. In addition, in the context of brand performance-related transgressions, a similar motivation seems to also emerge in the form of a desire for revenge or retaliation against a brand. (Aaker et al., 2004; Aggarwal, 2004; Fetscherin & Sampedro, 2019; Grégoire et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Khamitov et al., 2020; Sinha & Lu, 2016). As discussed in Chapter 6, performance-related transgressions concern product malfunction or poor service experience, which are often detached from social, political, or environmental issues. 137 Second, we expected business reformation to be more strongly influenced by collective efficacy beliefs than other personal goals. This latent factor is represented by items that clearly reference an intention for companies to change their practices or otherwise take some form of action. Thus, it is plausible that this personal goal is more strongly activated when consumers believe that their joint effort will be efficacious in sparking corporate accountability and change. Moreover, the qualitative results from Study 1 suggest that consumer activists who more strongly embrace business reformation goals portrayed higher efficacy beliefs. Thus, taken together, there is plausible evidence to speculate collective efficacy will produce a heightened influence on business reformation. Predictive Validity Predictive validity, a form of criterion validity, can be assessed by examining how good the proposed scale is in predicting consumer activist behaviors. Predictive validity is theoretically relevant because personal goals are expected to motivate individuals toward specific actions. Therefore, predictive validity could be established by demonstrating that the five identified personal goals can be used to predict different types of activist-like behaviors. To assess the predictive validity of the scale, logistic regression models will be employed to examine how the five identified personal goals predict the likelihood of 12 distinct activist- like behaviors to be enacted among participants in their most recent episode of consumer activism. As explained below, the scale was applied to the context of participants’ most recent episode of consumer activism, and therefore, a causal relationship can be inferred between their personal motivations to take action and their activist-like behaviors of choice. Data Collection and Sampling Study 3 followed the same sampling protocol utilized in Study 2. It observed the same demographic quotas and employed a similar recruitment effort to ensure the representation of 138 lower and higher commitment threshold activist behaviors. Data were collected in January 2023. Similar to Study 2, participants who had never engaged in any consumer activism behavior (N = 621) or who failed to commit to reading the questions carefully and providing throughout answers (N=96) were screened out from the survey. Participants received a small financial incentive upon survey completion. The total sample size was N=458, as mentioned above. The survey answering process followed the same protocol used in Study 2 with the addition of survey questions related to variables in the nomological model. Thus, in Study 3, we asked participants to indicate the issue most closely related to their activism, their involvement with the issue, their negative feelings toward the brand, and perceived consumer collective efficacy. Last, they were asked to answer the 20 items related to the measurement scale. Similar to Study 2, participants were asked to think about the most recent consumer activism episode when answering the abovementioned questions. Sample Demographic Description Similar to Study 2, the sample is demographically diverse across all measured variables, as demonstrated in Table 11, with different activism behaviors represented, as per Table 12. Activism behavioral incidence also mimics Study 2, with boycotting being the most prevalent form of action for 51 percent of participants, followed by petition signing (40 percent) and encouraging others to take action (34 percent). Among higher commitment behaviors, joining online activist groups (21 percent), writing a letter to government representatives (14 percent), and protesting through the use of physical materials (14 percent) are the most commonly adopted types of behaviors. Also, as reported in Table 13, most participants (81 percent) reported engaging in consumer activism less than two years ago. 139 Table 11. Sample Demographics Variable Descritpive Statistics Agea M=46.35; SD=17.94; Min=18; Max=88 Females 54.15 (248) Gendera Males 45.20 (207) Non-binary, non-conforming, and .65 (3) transgender White 69.43 (318) Black 13.10 (60) Ethnicity*a Latinos 18.78 (86) Other races/ethnicities 10.04 (46) No formal qualifications .44 (2) Less than high school 2.40 (11) High school diploma 27.07 (124) Technical/community college 20.31 (93) Education Undergraduate degree (BA/BSc/other) 32.10 (147) Doctorate degree (PhD/other) 14.85 (68) Graduate degree 2.84 (13) (MA/MSc/MPhil/other) Less than $10,000 7.86 (36) $10,000 to $59,999 41.05 (188) Income $60,000 to $99,999 31.00 (142) $100,000 to $149,999 14.41 (66) More than $149,999 5.68 (26) Extremely conservative 8.30 (38) Conservative 12.88 (59) Slightly conservative 10.70 (49) Political ideology Moderate 31.00 (142) Slightly liberal 13.10 (60) Liberal 13.97 (64) Extremely liberal 10.04 (46) N=458. Note. *Multiple choice: total can be above 100%. aVariables used for quota sampling. For categorical variables, cell proportions presented followed by cell count, displayed between parentheses. 140 Table 12. Sample Proportion of Activist-Like Behaviors Past Actions Most Recent Action(s) Behaviors % N % N Lower commitment Signed a petition against a company 40.17 184 23.14 106 Wrote a social media post against a 27.07 124 13.76 63 company Shared content on social media 30.35 139 19.43 89 against a company Donated money to an organization that could take action against a 17.69 81 7.86 36 company Encouraged other people to take 33.84 155 19.87 91 action against a company Boycotted (stop purchasing from) a 51.31 235 41.70 191 company Higher commitment Picketed or participated in a protest 11.14 51 3.93 18 against a company Protested against a company using physical materials, such as t-shirts, 13.54 62 6.33 29 hats, bumper stickers or yard signs Wrote a letter to or called my government representative asking for 14.41 66 6.77 31 action against a company Wrote a blog post against a company 8.08 37 3.71 17 Joined organization(s) or group(s) 10.48 48 3.71 17 against a company Joined online/social media group(s) 21.40 98 9.83 45 against a company Others 3.49 16 2.62 12 N=458. Note. Question-wording for past action: Using the list below, please select all strategies you have used in the past to take action against companies because of unethical or controversial business decisions or business practices that impact issues (or problems) that you care about. Question-wording for most recent action(s): Considering the most recent time you took action, what action(s) did you take? Multiple choice questions and total can be above 100%. 141 Table 13. Sample Proportion of Activist-Like Behavior Frequency Timeframe % N Less than 1 month ago 17.69 81 Less than 6 months ago 32.53 149 Less than 1 year ago 19.43 89 Less than 2 years ago 11.14 51 2 or more years ago 19.21 88 N=458. In Study 3, we also asked participants to identify the most important, self-relevant issue associated with the most recent episode of their consumer activism. For that, they were asked to use a pre-defined list of issues created based on survey data from other studies (Pew Research Center, 2006, 2016, 2020) and qualitative data from Study 1. Participants could also indicate other issues and specify those through a text box. Our findings, summarized in Table 14, show that consumer activism issues are highly pulverized across different themes. The most prevalent issues consumer activists in our sample care about are protecting workers’ rights (10 percent), preventing racism (8 percent), and protecting LGBTQ+ rights (7 percent), while the least popular are restricting abortion access (3 percent), protecting a free-market economy (2 percent), and reducing the gender gap (2 percent). Other issues represent about 9 percent. We also examined mean political ideology scores vis-a-vis consumer activism issues. Unsurprisingly, issues typically associated with a liberal or conservative agenda (Copeland, 2014c; Heldman, 2017) were, on average, endorsed by participants from a similar political ideology. For example, while protecting abortion rights or reducing the rich-poor gap are typically embraced by the more liberal ones, protecting gun rights, and freedom of religion are associated with actions taken by those who are more conservative. 142 Table 14. Sample Proportion of Consumer Activism Issues Issues % N Mean political ideology score Protecting abortion access 5.90 27 2.96 [2.35; 3.58] Reducing the rich-poor gap 4.15 19 3.00 [2.48; 3.52] Reducing the gender gap 1.97 9 3.22 [2.44; 4.01] Protecting LGBTQ+ rights 6.55 30 3.23 [2.58; 3.89] Preventing climate change 3.28 15 3.33 [2.44; 4.22] Protecting human rights 5.68 26 3.46 [2.93; 4.00] Protecting healthcare rights 4.15 19 3.58 [2.99; 4.17] Preventing racism 7.86 36 3.64 [3.20; 4.08] Protecting workers' rights 10.04 46 3.65 [3.20; 4.10] Protecting the environment 3.93 18 3.67 [2.86; 4.47] Protecting animal rights 5.46 25 3.76 [3.14; 4.38] Restricting LGBTQ+ rights 4.80 22 4.05 [3.33; 4.76] Supporting gun control 3.06 14 4.07 [2.94; 5.21] Preventing fake news 5.24 24 4.17 [3.52; 4.81] Restricting abortion access 2.62 12 4.33 [3.33; 5.34] Protecting a free-market economy 2.40 11 4.36 [3.48; 5.25] Protecting freedom of speech 5.02 23 4.83 [4.21; 5.44] Protecting gun rights 4.59 21 5.10 [4.45; 5.74] Protecting freedom of religion 4.15 19 5.32 [4.43; 6.20] Others 9.17 42 4.57 [3.99; 5.15] N=458. Note. Consumer activism issues ordered by political ideological scores, ranging from 1, extremely liberal, to 7, extremely conservative. The 95 percent confidence intervals are presented between squared brackets. Issues with fewer than 9 observations (less than two percent of the sample total) were aggregated as “Others.” Data Missing, Imputation Procedures, and Sample Sizes for Analyses The measurement scale model was estimated using complete cases (N=458). Although no single standard exists for determining what a complete or partially complete case is (Couper & de Leeuw, 2003), those were defined as observations with ten percent or less of missing data (Heeringa et al., 2010; Newman, 2014). Data missing was considerably low, with only 0.4 percent of missing data, with 11 participants with one item missing and six participants with two to five items missing across all variables of interest. Although mean imputation is acceptable for such a low rate of missing data (Newman, 2014), this rate is higher than that of Study 2. Thus, we decided to employ a sequential multivariate tree-based imputation procedure, which is expected to outperform less sophisticated imputation methods or parametric multiple imputation 143 models in capturing complex interactions in the data that may be associated with item nonresponse (Murray, 2018). Using the Mice R package (Buuren & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011), a decision tree machine learning algorithm was used for imputation. Imputed values were predicted using variables with a minimum correlation of .25. The examination of the post- imputation distributions indicates that the imputation procedure was implemented successfully. Imputed values fell within the range of acceptable values for each variable, and descriptive statistics were virtually unaffected (Azur et al., 2011; Heeringa et al., 2010; Murray, 2018; Raghunathan, 2004). Measures Consumer Activism Motivations Scale (CAMS). Items were measured following the same procedure used in Study 2 via a 7-point Likert scale anchored on strongly disagree and strongly agree. Variables were inspected for item missingness, outliers, and normality violation. No outliers were detected. Skewness values ranged from -1.27 to zero, and kurtosis values ranged between -1.27 and 1.29, which jointly suggest that the assumption of normality is acceptable (Ryu, 2011). The descriptive statistics of each item and their correlations are presented in Table 15. In the nomological model, the CAMS’ latent factors represent dependent variables, influenced by the following independent measures: 144 Table 15. Descriptive Statistics of Measurement Items Correlation Matrix Mean Scale Items BPU BRE DC NS VS [SD] 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 BPU 1: I wanted to tarnish the 3.96 company's reputation [6] [2.06] BPU 2: I wanted to damage the 3.88 .80 company's image [7] [2.01] BPU 3: I wanted to hurt the 4.21 .68 .67 company's profits [9] [2.08] BPU 4: I wanted to negatively affect 4.25 .71 .70 .73 the company's market position [13] [2.03] BRE 1: I wanted the company to 5.68 .12 .10 .18 .12 adjust its practices [19] [1.51] BRE 2: I wanted the company to 5.66 implement changes in the right .08 .12 .14 .14 .72 [1.53] direction [20] BRE 3: I wanted the company to 5.45 .12 .14 .15 .07 .64 .65 acknowledge its mistakes [21] [1.61] BRE 4: I wanted the company to 5.753 .13 .18 .18 .14 .71 .70 .64 reevaluate its actions/decisions [22] [1.47] DC 1: I felt responsible for doing 5.26 something when the company .19 .18 .17 .15 .47 .47 .47 .49 [1.64] violated an important issue [28] DC 2: I think it was my duty to call 5.16 it out when the company behaved .19 .22 .15 .15 .53 .55 .51 .52 .69 [1.65] unethically [29] DC 3: I think it was my obligation 5.24 to stand up against a corporate .21 .21 .14 .17 .53 .50 .48 .48 .70 .70 [1.68] wrongdoing [30] DC 4: I needed to do something when I learned that the company 5.35 .21 .22 .20 .20 .51 .52 .47 .51 .64 .65 .67 crossed certain ethical boundaries [1.52] [33] 145 Table 15 (cont’d) NS 1: I felt solidarity with those 4.93 .30 .28 .20 .20 .36 .40 .39 .37 .41 .44 .43 .46 affected by the company [39] [1.78] NS 2: I felt a sense of “brotherhood” 4.71 or “sisterhood” with those affected .28 .24 .18 .21 .37 .37 .37 .34 .45 .43 .48 .42 .71 [1.89] by the company [45] NS 3: I felt solidarity with others 4.89 .28 .32 .21 .20 .37 .40 .37 .38 .45 .45 .44 .46 .75 .69 who also took action [47] [1.81] NS 4: I stood united with others who 5.04 .30 .29 .21 .23 .35 .37 .38 .35 .51 .47 .48 .49 .72 .72 .74 also took action [55] [1.80] VS 1: I wanted to have a clear 4.63 .26 .23 .19 .18 .21 .21 .19 .24 .30 .32 .37 .32 .36 .36 .34 .34 conscience [56] [1.89] VS 2: I wanted to feel good about 4.11 .33 .31 .24 .20 .04 .05 .07 .07 .19 .16 .16 .15 .32 .31 .35 .32 .60 myself [59] [2.00] VS 3: It was important to signal my 4.89 .21 .22 .13 .16 .26 .26 .33 .27 .38 .40 .41 .34 .45 .47 .49 .48 .56 .50 values to others [64] [1.88] VS 4: I wanted to display my moral 4.95 .25 .24 .15 .17 .30 .30 .32 .31 .39 .40 .44 .41 .45 .45 .48 .48 .53 .49 .66 beliefs [66] [1.80] N=458. Note. Item number in Study 2 displayed between squared brackets in the first column. Skewness ranged from -1.27 to zero and Kurtosis from -1.27 to 1.29. Variables were measured using a 7-point Likert scale. 146 Issue involvement (independent measure). The measure was adapted from Zaichkowsky's (1994) 10-item personal involvement inventory. To apply the scale to measure issue (and not advertising message) involvement, three items were replaced using the original involvement scale (Zaichkowsky, 1985), similar to O’Cass and Griffin (2006). Items (important/unimportant*; interesting/boring; relevant/irrelevant; means a lot to me/means nothing to me*; appealing/unappealing*; valuable/worthless; needed/not needed; matters to me/doesn't matter to me*; of concern/of no concern; significant/insignificant*) were measured using a 7-point semantic differential scale and indicated items were reverse-coded. Indicate items were reverse coded. The average issue involvement was 5.77, where higher values indicate higher levels of involvement (SD=1.35, Cronbach’s 𝛼 .91, skewness = -1.04; kurtosis = .29). Feelings of brand hate (independent measure). Brand hate has been conceptualized as contempt, anger, and disgust (CAD) against the brand (Grappi et al., 2013; Romani et al., 2015). Three items (feeling revulsion, disgust, and aversion) used by Romani et al. (2015) were employed to measure disgust. Contempt (scornful, disdainful, contemptuous) and anger (mad, angry, very annoyed) were measured using Grappi et al.'s (2013) scale. Similar to the authors, items were measured using a 7-point Likert scale anchored on very weak and very strong. The average issue involvement was 4.83, where higher values indicate stronger feelings of brand hate (SD=1.37, Cronbach’s 𝛼 .92, skewness = -.38; kurtosis = -.18). Perceived collective efficacy (independent measure). Six items were adapted from Ji and Kim's (2020) consumer activism collective efficacy and Lee's (2010) social activism collective efficacy scales to measure consumer activism collective efficacy. The items (The collective actions of consumers can influence the company's decisions; The collective actions of consumers can improve the company's behaviors; Consumers can collectively discipline the company's 147 unethical behaviors; Consumers' collective actions can make the company change its actions; Consumers can collectively influence the company's response; Consumers can collectively reduce the company's disregard of consumers' interests) were measured via a 7-point Likert scale anchored on strongly disagree and strongly agree. The average collective efficacy was 5.27, where higher values indicate stronger perceived efficacy (SD=1.33, Cronbach’s 𝛼 .92, skewness = -.68; kurtosis = .08). Results Model fit and Measurement Properties The results indicate that the CFA model has acceptable fit across all indexes analyzed, except for the model chi-square, which, as explained above, was expected due to the large sample size analyzed (model chi-square = 344.82 (160), p<.001; chi-square/df = 2.16; RMSEA = .050; SRMR = .043; CFI = .970; and TLI = 963), as indicated in Table 16. Factor intercorrelations are presented in Table 17. 148 Table 16. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results of the Consumer Activism Motivation Scale (CAMS) Measurement Items Loadings Brand Punishment 6. I wanted to tarnish the company's reputation .89 [.01] 7. I wanted to damage the company's image .88 [.01] 9. I wanted to hurt the company's profits .79 [.02] 13. I wanted to negatively affect the company's market position .82 [.02] Business Reformation 19. I wanted the company to adjust its practices .85 [.02] 20. I wanted the company to implement changes in the right direction .85 [.02] 21. I wanted the company to acknowledge its mistakes .77 [.02] 22. I wanted the company to reevaluate its actions/decisions .83 [.02] Consumer Duty 28. I felt responsible for doing something when the company violated an .82 [.02] important issue 29. I think it was my duty to call it out when the company behaved .83 [.02] unethically 30. I think it was my obligation to stand up against a corporate .84 [.02] wrongdoing 33. I needed to do something when I learned that the company crossed .79 [.02] certain ethical boundaries Network Solidarity 39. I felt solidarity with those affected by the company .85 [.02] 45. I felt a sense of “brotherhood” or “sisterhood” with those affected by .82 [.02] the company 47. I felt solidarity with others who also took action .86 [.02] 55. I stood united with others who also took action .86 [.02] Virtuous Self 56. I wanted to have a clear conscience .72 [.03] 59. I wanted to feel good about myself .66 [.03] 64. It was important to signal my values to others .81 [.02] 66. I wanted to display my moral beliefs .79 [.02] Model Chi-Square Statistics 344.82 (160), p<.001 Normed Chi-Square (Chi-Square/df) 2.16 RMSEA .05 SRMR .04 CFI .97 TLI .96 N=458. Note. Standard errors are presented between squared brackets. All estimated factor loadings are statistically significant at 99.99 percent, i.e., p<.001. 149 Table 17. CFA Model Factor Intercorrelations, Reliability Statistics, and Average Variance Extracted Composite Cronbach's Factor Intercorrelations AVE Reliability Alpha 1 2 3 4 1. Brand Punishment 0.91 0.91 0.71 2. Business Reformation .18 [.09; .28] 0.89 0.89 0.67 3. Consumer Duty .27 [.18; .36] .74 [.69; .79] 0.89 0.89 0.68 4. Network Solidarity .35 [.27; .44] .53 [.45; .60] .65 [.59; .71] 0.91 0.91 0.72 5. Virtuous Self .34 [.24; .43] .37 [.28; .47] .55 [.47; .63] .65 [.59; .72] 0.82 0.83 0.55 N=458. Note. AVE = Average variance extracted. The 95 percent confidence interval of factor intercorrelations are presented between squared brackets. 150 Additionally, the unidimensionality requirement is met, as each measurement item is indicated by a single latent variable only, without any correlated error terms. Therefore, as explained above, the proposed scale can be defined as MCT, a robust indication of construct validity. As displayed in Table 18, we also examined the scale measurement properties by comparing the MCT with the more restrictive assumptions of the MCTEV and TSEM. The model comparison chi-square difference tests rejected the null hypothesis of equal fit in both cases [MCTEV: 85.00 (15), p<.001; TSEM: 101.63 (25), p<.001], thereby rendering the examination of the MPT assumptions meaningless. Thus, our results indicate that the scale items are linearly related. However, they measure the true latent score in different measurement units and levels of precision, which is expected in the social and behavioral sciences (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). 151 Table 18. Measurement Models Based on Classical Test Theory Measurement Model df Chi-Square RMSEA SRMR CFI TLI Chi-Square Diff. Test AIC BIC MCT 160 344.82 .050 .043 .970 .964 30605.82 30812.16 MCT + Equal Variance 175 429.82 .056 .049 .958 .955 85.00 (15), p<.001 30660.82 30805.26 MTSE 185 442.17 .056 .052 .957 .956 101.63(25), p<.001 31052.39 31155.83 N=458. Note. MCT: Model of congeneric tests. MTSE: Model of true score equivalent tests (tau-equivalent test). 152 Next, we examined the extent to which the scale can be used to compare consumer activism motivation scores between activists who have only engaged in behaviors that generally require a lower level of commitment (N=327), such as petition signing, online posting, and boycotting, and those who engaged in more effortful behaviors (N=120), such as picketing, joining activism groups, and using physical materials. Our findings, presented in Table 19, suggest that 1) the same latent structure can be applied to both groups (configural invariance), 2) that the latent factors have the same meaning for both groups (weak invariance), and 3) scale can be used to compare group means unbiasedly as they tend to use the response scale similarly (strong invariance). This means that a one-unit increase in the motivational score of someone who engaged in social media sharing activism is, on average, equivalent to a one-unit increase in the motivational score of a consumer who joined a picketing line. Table 19. Between-Group Measurement Invariance Model Assessment Measurement df Chi-Square Chi-Square Diff. Test AIC BIC RMSEA CFI Invariance Models Configural 320 564.85 29834 30408 .059 .959 Weak 340 590.39 25.54 (20), p=0.18 29819 30312 .057 .958 Strong 355 615.37 24.98 (15), p>0.05 29814 30245 .057 .957 Strict 375 670.54 55.18 (20), p<.001 29830 30178 .059 .951 N=447. The model testing results support these findings. The model comparison chi-square difference tests accepted the null hypothesis of equal fit between configural and weak [25.54 (20), p=.18] and between weak and strong invariance [24.98 (15), p>.05]. Because the null hypothesis of equal fit for strong invariance is close to the region of rejection at a five percent significance level, it is advisable to inspect changes in CFI and RMSEA scores jointly. Changes equal to or lower than .01 and .005 in these fit indices may indicate a negligible effect of parameter fixation on model performance (Chen, 2007; Kline, 2015; Wu et al., 2007). As 153 displayed in Table 19, RMSEA was virtually unchanged, and CFI declined by .001. Thus, supporting the hypothesis of equal fit for strong invariance. Convergent and Discriminant Validity The statistical support of the MCT assumptions, the standardized loadings above .50 (see Table 16), and the composite reliability coefficients above .70 (see Table 17) are strong indicators of convergent validity. Additionally, AVE scores are all above .50, ranging from .55 for virtuous self to .72 for network solidarity, further validating the scale for convergence. Discriminant validity was established by the joint examination of the upper limit of the factor intercorrelations confidence intervals and the results of the Fornell-Larcker test and the HTMT ratio. As displayed in Table 17, factor intercorrelations confidence intervals are below the .80 threshold. The inspection of the Fornell-Larcker test matrix reveals that the AVE square root values, located in the main diagonal, are all above the interfactor correlation coefficients in the same row and column, as presented in Table 20. For example, the AVE square root for brand punishment is .85, above its correlation scores with all other four latent factors, ranging from .18 to 36. Therefore, discriminant validity is supported by the Fornell-Larcker test. Last, we examined the HTMT ratio matrix (see Table 20) for values above the .85 cutoff point as an indication of discriminant validity issues. HTMT ratio scores ranged from .19 between brand punishment and business reformation and .74 between consumer duty and business reformation. Thus, HTMT also supports discriminant validity. 154 Table 20. Fornell-Larcker Test and HTMT Ratio Test Results Fornell-Larcker Test HTMT Ratio Test 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1. Brand Punishment .85 1 2. Business Reformation .18 .82 .19 1 3. Consumer Duty .27 .74 .82 .27 .74 1 4. Network Solidarity .36 .53 .65 .85 .34 .53 .65 1 5. Virtuous Self .34 .38 .55 .65 .74 .34 .29 .49 .63 1 N=458. Jointly, these tests provide acceptable evidence of discriminant validity by demonstrating that the measurement items indicating the same construct have more in common than what they have with the indicators of the other motivational dimensions. Nomological Validity Nomological validity was assessed via an SEM model estimated via maximum likelihood. As presented in Table 21, the nomological model proposes that each latent variable in the measurement model is influenced by issue involvement, brand hate, and collective efficacy. The overall fit of the model is acceptable (model chi-square = 410.17 (205), p<.001; chi- square/df = 2.00; RMSEA = .047; SRMR = .041; CFI = .968; and TLI = 961). 155 Table 21. Nomological Validity Assessment via SEM Model Path Model Estimated Std. Coefficients Involvement → Brand Punishment -.17 (.05) [-.21; -.06]**** Brand hate → Brand Punishment .22 (.05) [.10; .25]**** Collective Efficacy → Brand Punishment .22 (.05) [.10; .26]**** Involvement → Business Reformation .22 (.04) [.16; .32]**** Brand hate → Business Reformation .27 (.04) [.20; .37]**** Collective Efficacy → Business Reformation .48 (.03) [.43; .62]**** Involvement → Consumer Duty .18 (.04) [.10; .25]**** Brand hate → Consumer Duty .33 (.04) [.22; .39]**** Collective Efficacy → Consumer Duty .31 (.04) [.21; .38]**** Involvement → Network Solidarity .09 (.05) [.00; .15]** Brand hate → Network Solidarity .19 (.05) [.08; .23]**** Collective Efficacy → Network Solidarity .33 (.05) [.20; .37]**** Involvement → Virtuous Self -.02 (.05) [-.10; .06] Brand hate → Virtuous Self .14 (.05) [.03; .19]*** Collective Efficacy → Virtuous Self .24 (.05) [.11; .28]**** Latent Variable Modeling Estimated Std. Loadings Brand Punishment BPU 1 .88 (.01)**** BPU 2 .88 (.01)**** BPU 3 .79 (.02)**** BPU 4 .82 (.02)**** Business Reformation BRE 1 .84 (.02)**** BRE 2 .85 (.02)**** BRE 3 .77 (.02)**** BRE 4 .82 (.02)**** Dury Call DC 1 .82 (.02)**** DC 2 .83 (.02)**** DC 3 .84 (.02)**** DC 4 .80 (.02)**** Network Solidarity NS 1 .85 (.02)**** NS 2 .82 (.02)**** NS 3 .86 (.01)**** NS 4 .86 (.02)**** Viruous Self VS 1 .71 (.03)**** VS 2 .66 (.03)**** VS 3 .81 (.02)**** VS 4 .79 (.02)**** 156 Table 21 (cont’d) Model Chi-Square Statistics 410.17 (205), p<.001 Normed Chi-Square (Chi-Square/df) 2.00 RMSEA .05 SRMR .04 CFI .97 TLI .96 N=458. Note. Std. = Standardized loadings and regression coefficients. Standard error displayed between parentheses. 95 percent confidence intervals displayed between square brackets. Significance levels: *p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01, ****p<.001. Overall, the observed relationships are in line with the theoretical evidence. The nomological model demonstrates that all consumer activism motivations are positively and significantly influenced by brand hate feelings and perceived collective efficacy. Our findings show that collective efficacy has the most considerable impact on business reformation, congruent with our expectations. As collective efficacy increases by one standard deviation, the true latent value of business reformation is estimated to increase by a .48 standard deviation, which is statistically significant. As expected, the effect of collective efficacy on business reformation is higher than on any other motivational goal, as suggested by the 95 confidence intervals of the standardized coefficients. Brand hate has a relatively homogenous influence and is equally essential in creating all personal goals. For instance, as brand hate increases by one standard deviation, brand punishment increases by a .22 standard deviation, which is statistically significant. The impact issue involvement is more heterogenous across motivational goals. Issue involvement has a positive, significant effect in generating business reformation, consumer duty, and network solidarity. On the other hand, it has a negative, significant influence on brand punishment. For instance, as issue involvement increases, consumers are less likely to pursue consumer activism to punish the brand, which is congruent with our expectations. Issue 157 involvement also has a small negative effect on virtuous self, but that is not statistically different from zero. Predictive Validity Our predictive validity assessment shows that consumer activists’ personal goals differently influence activism behaviors. First, we examined predictive validity between two broad categories of activism behaviors: lower vs. higher commitment forms of action (see Table 22). After controlling for demographic differences, our results indicate that business reformation only significantly predicts lower commitment activism. As business reformation increases by one standard deviation, the relative odds ratio of a consumer activist engaging in lower-commitment activism is 108 percent higher. On the other hand, behaviors representing higher levels of commitment are positively influenced by network solidarity and are negatively affected by business reformation. As network solidarity increases by one standard deviation, the relative odds ratio of a consumer activist engaging in higher-commitment activism is 80 percent higher. In contrast, a similar increase in business reformation will decrease the odds of higher- commitment activism by 41 percent. Virtuous self also positively impacts higher-commitment behaviors, but its effect is only significant at ten percent. 158 Table 22. Predictive Validity Assessment via Logistic Regression Models for Lower vs. Higher Commitment Activist Behavior Groups Lower Commitment Higher Commitment Predictors Coeff. RR Coeff. RR BPUa .04 [.18] 1.04 -.07 [.12] .93 BREa .73 [.21]**** 2.08 -.53 [.17]*** .59 DCa .11 [.23] 1.12 .05 [.18] 1.05 NSa -.22 [.27] .80 .59 [.19]*** 1.80 VSa -.33 [.22] .72 .25 [.15]* 1.28 Agea .57 [.21]*** 1.77 -.60 [.14]**** .55 Gender: Male -1.37 [.37]**** .25 .47 [.24]* 1.60 Gender: Others -1.37 [1.44] .25 .07 [1.27] 1.07 Income: $10,000 to $59,999 1.06 [.62]* 2.89 -.15 [.40] .86 Income: $60,000 to $99,999 .22 [.40] 1.25 -.26 [.28] .77 Income: $100,000 to $149,999 .63 [.56] 1.88 -.13 [.44] .88 Income: More than $149,999 .69 [.60] 1.99 -.13 [.46] .88 Race: Blacks/African Americans .58 [.68] 1.79 -.21 [.52] .81 Race: Others 16.53 [705.45] 1.5⋅107 -1.83 [.89]** .16 Education: Technical -.08 [.51] .92 .32 [.34] 1.38 Education: Undergraduate .24 [.46] 1.27 .34 [.31] 1.40 Education: Graduate -.64 [.48] .53 .44 [.36] 1.55 Political Ideologya -.01 [.18] .99 .00 [.12] 1.00 Model deviance (df) 257.44 (428) 459.39 (428) Null model deviance (df) 313.24 (446) 520.06 (446) McFadden R2 .18 .12 Cox & Snell R2 .12 .13 Nagelkerke R2 .23 .19 N=447. Note. Significance levels: *p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01, ****p<.001. Reference categories: gender = female, income = less than $10,000, race = Whites, education = high school or lower. Standard errors are presented between squared brackets. aContinuous predictors have been standardized. RR = rate ratio. 159 We also examined predictive validity at a more granular level across the 12 surveyed activism behaviors. Results are presented in Table 23, for lower-commitment behaviors, and Table 24, for higher-commitment behaviors. Our results demonstrate that all behaviors are significantly predicted by at least one motivational goal. Brand punishment positively influences boycotting and writing a letter to a government representative. Business reformation positively affects petition signing and boycotting and negatively influences picketing, using physical materials, and offline group participation. Consumer duty positively influences encouraging others and writing a letter to a government representative. Network solidarity positively impacts online posting, donating, encouraging others, picketing, the use of physical materials, and online group participation, and it negatively influences boycotting. Finally, virtuous self has a positive effect on blogging, and a negative effect on online sharing, encouraging others and boycotting. 160 Table 23. Predictive Validity Assessment via Logistic Regression Models for Lower Commitment Behavior Encouraging Petition Signing Online Posting Online Sharing Donating Boycotting Predictors Others Coeff. RR Coeff. RR Coeff. RR Coeff. RR Coeff. RR Coeff. RR -0.14 0.05 -0.11 -0.29 -0.01 0.39 BPUa 0.87 1.05 .90 .75 .99 1.48 [0.12] [0.15] [0.13] [0.19] [0.13] [0.12]*** 0.33 0.04 0.11 -0.31 -0.26 0.56 BREa 1.39 1.04 1.12 .73 .77 1.75 [0.18]* [0.21] [0.17] [0.26] [0.18] [0.16]**** 0.13 0.03 -0.2 0.04 0.62 -0.02 DCa 1.14 1.03 .82 1.04 1.86 .98 [0.18] [0.22] [0.18] [0.28] [0.2]*** [0.17] 0.05 0.46 0.27 0.66 0.47 -0.4 NSa 1.05 1.58 1.31 1.93 1.60 .67 [0.16] [0.22]** [0.18] [0.31]** [0.19]** [0.16]** -0.18 -0.13 -0.25 0.19 -0.29 -0.26 VSa 0.84 0.88 .78 1.21 .75 .77 [0.14] [0.17] [0.15]* [0.23] [0.15]* [0.14]* -0.04 -0.58 -0.26 -0.22 -0.1 0.74 Agea 0.96 0.56 .77 .80 .90 2.10 [0.14] [0.18]*** [0.15]* [0.23] [0.15] [0.13]**** 0.12 -0.03 0.09 0.23 -0.7 -0.21 Gender:Male 1.13 0.97 1.09 1.26 .50 .81 [0.24] [0.3] [0.26] [0.39] [0.27]*** [0.23] 1.34 0.78 1.44 1.48 1.94 1.16 Gender: Others 3.82 2.18 4.22 4.39 6.96 3.19 [1.31] [1.33] [1.31] [1.36] [1.4] [1.33] Income: $10,000 to -0.14 0.43 -0.97 1.74 0.13 -0.4 0.87 1.54 .38 5.70 1.14 .67 $59,999 [0.46] [0.48] [0.54]* [0.56]*** [0.48] [0.46] Income: $60,000 to 0.04 0.06 -0.01 0.99 0.09 0.11 1.04 1.06 .99 2.69 1.09 1.12 $99,999 [0.29] [0.35] [0.3] [0.47]** [0.31] [0.28] Income: $100,000 to 0.67 0.43 0.2 1.01 1.02 -0.08 1.95 1.54 1.22 2.75 2.77 .92 $149,999 [0.51] [0.56] [0.49] [0.83] [0.59]* [0.49] Income: More than 0.34 0.52 -0.11 1.23 1.12 0.29 1.4 1.68 .90 3.42 3.06 1.34 $149,999 [0.54] [0.59] [0.53] [0.86] [0.61]* [0.5] Race: Blacks/African 0.6 0 -0.04 0.85 0.35 0.07 1.82 1.00 .96 2.34 1.42 1.07 Americans [0.58] [0.69] [0.58] [0.97] [0.69] [0.55] -0.11 -0.09 0.4 1.51 1.31 0.98 Race: Others 0.9 0.91 1.49 4.53 3.71 2.66 [0.82] [0.95] [0.71] [1.16] [0.81] [0.68] 0.10 -0.19 0.33 -0.25 0.08 0.33 Education: Technical 1.11 0.83 1.39 .78 1.08 1.39 [0.33] [0.41] [0.4] [0.55] [0.35] [0.32] Education: -0.13 0.04 -0.08 -0.09 -0.38 0.28 0.88 1.04 .92 .91 .68 1.32 Undergraduate [0.31] [0.37] [0.37] [0.51] [0.35] [0.3] -0.51 -0.65 -0.26 -0.32 0.02 0.25 Education: Graduate 0.6 0.52 .77 .73 1.02 1.28 [0.39] [0.49] [0.38] [0.59] [0.39] [0.36] 161 Table 23 (cont’d) -0.3 0.07 -0.32 -0.07 -0.14 0.18 Political Ideologya 0.74 1.07 .73 .93 .87 1.20 [0.12]** [0.15] [0.14]** [0.2] [0.13] [0.12] Model deviance (df), 460.45 (428), 335.09 (428), 416.55 (428), 218.55 (428), 406.24 (428), 499.80 (428), Null model deviance 489.69 (446) 363.56 (446) 446.25 (446) 250.39 (446) 451.76 (446) 610.19 (446) (df) McFadden R2 .06 .08 .07 .13 .10 .18 Cox & Snell R2 .06 .06 .06 .07 .10 .22 Nagelkerke R2 .10 .11 .10 .16 .15 .29 N=447. Note. Significance levels: *p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01, ****p<.001. Reference categories: gender = female, income = less than $10,000, race = Whites, education = high school or lower. Standard errors are presented between squared brackets. aContinuous predictors have been standardized. RR = rate ratio. 162 Table 24. Predictive Validity Assessment via Logistic Regression Models for Higher Commitment Behavior Physical Picketing Letter Blogging Offline Groups Online Groups Predictors Materials Coeff. RR Coeff. RR Coeff. RR Coeff. RR Coeff. RR Coeff. RR .03 .00 .36 .06 -.42 -.01 BPUa 1.03 1.00 1.43 1.06 .66 .99 [.27] [.21] [.21]* [.29] [.27] [.17] -.59 -.63 -.30 -.13 -.62 -.08 BREa .55 .53 .74 .88 .54 .92 [.34]* [.27]** [.26] [.41] [.33]* [.27] -.10 -.17 .52 -.14 -.10 -.33 DCa .90 .84 1.68 .87 .90 .72 [.42] [.31] [.31]* [.43] [.37] [.29] 1.02 .85 .33 .10 .64 .71 NSa 2.77 2.34 1.39 1.11 1.90 2.03 [.52]** [.37]** [.31] [.44] [.41] [.31]** .19 .00 -.03 .62 .07 .34 VSa 1.21 1.00 .97 1.86 1.07 1.40 [.33] [.25] [.24] [.36]* [.31] [.22] -.21 -.38 -.47 -.72 -.46 -.53 Agea .81 .68 .63 .49 .63 .59 [.30] [.24] [.24]** [.35]** [.34] [.21]** 1.00 1.04 -.07 .19 -.19 .54 Gender: Male 2.72 2.83 .93 1.21 .83 1.72 [.55]* [.44]** [.41] [.57] [.57] [.36] -15.34 -15.85 -16.04 1.84 -12.9 -13.24 Gender: Others .00 .00 .00 6.30 .00 .00 [3711.70] [3686.00] [3706.16] [1.47] [1382.94] [821.52] Income: $10,000 to -1.21 -1.98 .16 -.34 .02 .66 .30 .14 1.17 .71 1.02 1.93 $59,999 [1.14] [1.11]* [.66] [.91] [.82] [.56] Income: $60,000 to -.44 -.21 -.19 -.27 -.36 .59 .64 .81 .83 .76 .70 1.80 $99,999 [.61] [.47] [.47] [.61] [.66] [.40] Income: $100,000 to -.38 -.30 .34 -.25 .36 1.35 .68 .74 1.40 .78 1.43 3.86 $149,999 [.88] [.73] [.71] [.91] [1.16] [1.08] Income: More than -.79 -.31 -.29 -.42 .11 1.91 .45 .73 .75 .66 1.12 6.75 $149,999 [.97] [.78] [.78] [.95] [1.23] [1.08]* Race: Blacks/African -.01 -.29 -.45 -.17 1.03 1.43 .99 .75 .64 .84 2.80 4.18 Americans [1.00] [.86] [.88] [1.06] [1.25] [1.15] -15.56 -16.1 -16.06 -15.68 .15 1.39 Race: Others .00 .00 .00 .00 1.16 4.01 [1213.35] [1237] [1248.87] [1247.24] [1.58] [1.33] .11 -.02 -.52 .46 .88 .68 Education: Technical 1.12 .98 .59 1.58 2.41 1.97 [.69] [.70] [.63] [.84] [.99] [.53] Education: -.18 -.03 .08 1.23 1.29 .62 .84 .97 1.08 3.42 3.63 1.86 Undergraduate [.64] [.61] [.49] [.71]* [.91] [.49] 163 Table 24 (cont’d) -.66 .01 .30 .21 1.75 .38 Education (Graduate) .52 1.01 1.35 1.23 5.75 1.46 [.89] [.61] [.58] [.96] [.89]** [.56] -.25 -.12 .01 -.28 -.02 .13 Political Ideologya .78 .89 1.01 .76 .98 1.14 [.26] [.21] [.20] [.29] [.27] [.18] Model deviance (df), 132.91 (428), 190.44 (428), 202.59 (428), 124.12 (428), 122.8 (428), 249.41 (428), Null model deviance 150.90 (446) 214.72 (446) 225.25 (446) 144.50 (446) 144.5 (446) 291.94 (446) (df) McFadden R2 .12 .11 .10 .14 .15 .15 Cox & Snell R2 .04 .05 .05 .05 .05 .09 Nagelkerke R2 .14 .14 .13 .16 .17 .19 N=447. Note. Significance levels: *p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01, ***p<.001. Reference categories: gender = female, income = less than $10,000, race = Whites, education = high school or lower. Standard errors are presented between squared brackets. aContinuous predictors have been standardized. RR = rate ratio. 164 Post Hoc Analyses Issue Involvement, Brand Hate, Collective Efficacy, and Motivational Goals Across Issues This post hoc analysis aims to complement our understanding of how the nomological constructs (involvement, brand hate, collective efficacy) and consumer activists' personal goals are distinctively activated by self-relevant issues. We begin by examining differences across the nomological constructs, illustrated in Figure 4. Collective efficacy scores are homogenous across issues [F(19, 438)=1.25, p=.213, η2=.051]. Different issues elicit slightly different levels of brand hate [F(19, 438)=1.71, p=.032, η2=.069], but none of the pairwise comparisons were significant. Last, self-relevant issues elicit differential levels of involvement [F(19, 438)=1.79, p=.021, η2=.072]. Pairwise comparisons indicate that issue involvement with environmental protection (mean difference=1.89, p=.01), animal rights (mean difference=1.67, p=.03), and freedom of speech protection (mean difference=1.56, p=.07) is significantly higher (at five and ten percent of significance) relative to involvement elicited by LGBTQ+ rights opposition. 165 Figure 4. Mean Scores of Brand Hate, Collective Efficacy, and Involvement Across Issues N = 416. Next, we examined personal goals differences across issues graphically represented in Figure 5. Our results indicate that only brand punishment scores vary by issues [brand punishment: F(19, 438)=1.88, p=.014, η2=.08; business reformation: F(19, 438)=0.84, p=.67, η2=.04; consumer duty: F(19, 438)=.96, p=.51, η2=.04; network solidarity: F(19, 438)=1.15, p=.30, η2=.05; virtuous self: F(19, 438)=1.00, p=.46, η2=.04]. Pairwise comparisons indicate that when companies’ actions represent a violation of consumer activists’ support of gun control, brand punishment is significantly higher (at ten percent of statistical significance) than when a violation is associated with human rights (mean difference=1.79, p=.07) and workers’ rights protection (mean difference=1.59, p=.08). 166 Figure 5. Mean Scores of Consumer Activism Motivations Across Issues N = 416. Additionally, Figure 5 demonstrates that business reformation average scores are higher than brand punishment across all issues but are sometimes significantly different, as indicated by the overlapping confidence intervals in Figure 6. This warrants further examination. The nomological model (see Table 21) shows that involvement has a significant but opposite effect in creating these two goals. While higher involvement increases business reformation, it decreases brand punishment, which suggests that differences between business reformation and brand punishment could be partially explained by the different levels of involvement elicited by issues. 167 This is graphically demonstrated in Figure 7. By ordering the issues from highest to lowest involvement, we can visually detect that the gap between these two goals widens, on average, as involvement increases. This finding corroborates our nomological model by showing that when companies violate issues that elicit higher levels of involvement, consumer activists become more strongly motivated to pursue business reformation goals instead of brand punishment. Figure 6. Mean Scores of Consumer Activism Motivations Across Issues with 95% Confidence Intervals N = 416. 168 Figure 7. Mean Scores of Brand Punishment, Business Reformation, and Involvement Across Issues N = 416. Consumer Activists’ Demographic Profile by Personal Goals We also examined if consumer activists’ demographic characteristics varied across the five personally motivating goals. Results are displayed in Table 25 and indicate that personal goals can be differently affected by age, race, income, and education. Older consumer activists are slightly more motivated by brand punishment, business reformation, consumer duty, and virtuous self, but not by network solidarity. Those with higher income ($100,000 to $140,000) seem more energized to act because of brand punishment, business reformation, and network 169 solidarity than those of lower economic status (less than $10,000). Activists of other racial groups, i.e., non-Whites and non-Blacks, are less likely to feel motivated by business reformation than Whites. 170 Table 25. OLS Regression Models Predicting Consumer Activism Personal Goals by Activists’ Demographic Characteristics Business Predictors Brand Punishmentb Consumer Dutyb Network Solidarityb Virtuous Selfb Reformationb Agea 0.09 [0.06]* 0.13 [0.05]** 0.16 [0.06]*** 0.08 [0.06] 0.10 [0.06]* Gender (Male) 0.06 [0.1] -0.09 [0.1] 0.05 [0.10] 0.09 [0.10] 0.08 [0.10] Gender (Others) -0.37 [0.59] -0.06 [0.58] -0.18 [0.59] -0.30 [0.59] 0.62 [0.59] Income ($10,000 to $59,999) 0.11 [0.19] 0.14 [0.19] -0.01 [0.19] 0.15 [0.19] 0.00 [0.19] Income ($60,000 to $99,999) 0.18 [0.2] 0.29 [0.20] 0.13 [0.20] 0.27 [0.20] 0.23 [0.2] Income ($100,000 to $149,999) 0.37 [0.22]* 0.38 [0.22]* 0.23 [0.22] 0.48 [0.22]** 0.10 [0.22] Income (More than $149,999) 0.14 [0.28] 0.33 [0.28] 0.03 [0.28] 0.15 [0.28] 0.27 [0.28] Race (Blacks/African Americans) -0.12 [0.18] 0.01 [0.05] 0.02 [0.05] -0.08 [0.05] -0.05 [0.05] Race (Others) -0.10 [0.12] -0.45 [0.17]** -0.14 [0.18] -0.06 [0.18] 0.11 [0.18] Education (Technical) -0.17 [0.14] 0.12 [0.12] 0.18 [0.12] 0.30 [0.12]** 0.28 [0.12]** Education (Undergraduate) 0.06 [0.13] 0.10 [0.14] -0.06 [0.14] 0.03 [0.14] -0.11 [0.14] Education (Graduate) -0.09 [0.15] 0.06 [0.13] -0.03 [0.13] -0.08 [0.13] -0.30 [0.13]** Political Ideologya -0.05 [0.05] -0.07 [0.15] -0.20 [0.15] -0.11 [0.15] -0.14 [0.15] 1.267 (13, 433), 2.343 (13, 433), 1.584 (13, 433), 1.47 (13, 433), 1.224 (13, 433), Model F Statistic (df) p=0.23 p=0.01 p=0.09 p=0.13 p=0.26 R2 .04 .07 .05 .04 .04 Adj. R2 .01 .04 .02 .01 .01 N=447. Note. Significance levels: *p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01, ****p<.001. Reference categories: gender = female, income = less than $10,000, race = Whites, education = high school or lower. Standard errors are presented between squared brackets. aContinuous predictors have been standardized. bStandardized continuous dependent variables. 171 Regarding education, those with a technical degree are more driven by network solidarity and virtuous self than those of lower educational attainment. Still, individuals with a graduate degree are less likely to pursue virtuous self goal than activists with a high school degree or lower educational attainment. However, the overall amount of variance explained by demographic variables is relatively small, ranging from one to four percent (adjust R2), and is only significantly different from zero, at a significance level of ten percent, for business reformation and consumer duty. Discussion In Study 3, a CFA was employed to confirm the latent structure of the proposed measurement scale (CAMS) about consumer activism motivational goals using a new independent sample of participants (N=458) recruited via quota sampling to represent the US populational distribution across vital demographic characteristics. In addition, the scale validity and measurement properties were carefully examined following best practices in psychometric scale development. Our findings provide statistical confirmation that consumer activism is spurred by five interrelated personal goals, which are distinctly influenced by consumer activists’ issue involvement, brand hate, and perceived collective efficacy. The CAMS provides a parsimonious tool for researchers and practitioners to detect what goals consumer activists aim to fulfill and predict what kind of activist-like behaviors they are likelier to deploy against a violating brand. Measurement properties assessment demonstrates that the latent factors are reliably measured, as indicated by composite reliability scores, and that it follows a unidimensional structure that conforms with the model of congeneric tests (MCT) (Jöreskog, 1971). This shows that the true scores of each measurement item indicated by the same latent factor are perfectly 172 correlated, which is crucial evidence of the scale’s construct validity (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; Green et al., 1977; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). In addition, our findings demonstrate that the scale can be employed to measure consumer activism across multiple behaviors associated with different levels of commitment. Because the proposed measurement operationalization is strongly invariant to group membership (lower vs. higher commitment activist-like behaviors), researchers can use our measurement tool to confidently assess and unbiasedly compare the motivational scores of consumer activists across multiple behaviors. This is a crucial empirical contribution since previous consumer activism motivational scales were explicitly devised for boycotting only (Klein et al., 2002, 2004; Pandey et al., 2021; Suhud et al., 2017). Study 3 also aimed to scrutinize the scale validity. Convergent validity was supported across all criteria: standardized loadings, composite reliability coefficients, and AVE scores. Discriminant validity demonstrates that as much as the five motivational dimensions are interrelated, they can be uniquely conceptualized and are sufficiently distinct from each other, as indicated by the Fornell-Larcker test (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), HTMT ratio (Henseler et al., 2015), and the examination of factor correlations confidence intervals (Rönkkö & Cho, 2022). Moreover, nomological validity results show that consumer activists’ goals fit acceptably within the proposed theoretical network of motivational constructs derived from seminal motivational frameworks (Celsi & Olson, 1988; Ford, 1992; Klein et al., 2004; Turner, 2007). In addition, our findings statistically confirm that emotional arousal (brand hate), agency beliefs (perceived collective efficacy), issue involvement, and personal goals are nomologically related. However, they should be conceptualized and measured as separate constructs (Ford, 1992). As previously discussed (Chapter 4), prior research studies have not adequately differentiated these 173 constructs and conflated them in measurement operationalizations. Therefore, the proposed measurement scale and nomological model infuse this body of knowledge with much-needed conceptual clarity concerning consumer activism motivational drivers. Congruent with our earlier theorization, the nomological model indicates that brand hate and collective efficacy are vital to creating all five personal goals. Brand hate is an emotional arousal motivational component with a relatively homogenous influence across all goals. Collective efficacy is an agency belief that positively impacts all goals, but its influence is more extensive in creating business reformation, which is congruent with our theory-based conceptualization. Because business reformation entails changing corporate behavior, which consumer activists do not control, efficacy beliefs would be necessary for driving activism motivated by business reformation goals. Additionally, issue involvement, as expected, has a negative influence on brand punishment. Instead, brand punishment is activated by a negative emotional arousing state against the brand and the perception that consumer activism will succeed in inflicting some financial or reputational harm to the brand. This finding is congruent with how online consumer activists express themselves on social media in the context of a corporate violation of animal rights (Muraro et al., in press). The authors show that tweets created to attack the violating brand are often devoid of any explicit association with the violated issue, animal rights. Our findings show that the more self-relevant an issue is for consumer activists, the more likely they are to move away from brand punishment and more strongly embrace other goals, such as business reformation, consumer duty, or network solidarity. Last, issue involvement has virtually no effect in creating virtuous self. Although this null relationship was not previously proposed, it is not a surprising finding. When consumer activism 174 emerges to fulfill a virtuous self goal, consumer activists are more strongly motivated to clear their conscience, feel good, and signal their moral beliefs to others. Thus, even brand violations of issues that are only moderately relevant to consumers may be enough to trigger and fulfill this type of goal. Predictive validity was also examined and provided empirical evidence that personal goals can be used to predict different activist-like behaviors distinctly. Our findings add a more nuanced perspective as to why consumer activists sometimes tend to engage in low-threshold, low-commitment, easy-to-perform behaviors, often denoted as slacktivism, or feel-good activism, as opposed to more impactful behaviors (Cabrera et al., 2017; Kristofferson et al., 2014; McCafferty, 2011; Morozov, 2009; Rotman et al., 2011; Skoric, 2012). Distinct motivations can partially explain different levels of activism commitment. When consumers are more strongly motivated to engage in business reformation, the likelihood of engaging in lower- commitment behaviors increases. Our findings show that felt empathy and solidarity, i.e., network solidarity, are crucial in driving higher-commitment activism. Previous studies have shown that easy-to-adopt prosocial actions or low-commitment activism are an entry door to more effortful actions, also called the conveyor belt hypothesis (Moskalenko & Mccauley, 2009). Smaller displays of prosocial behaviors (e.g., smaller donations or non-violent activism) tend to increase the likelihood of more effortful behaviors (e.g., larger donations or potentially violent forms of activism) in the future (Kristofferson et al., 2014; Moskalenko & Mccauley, 2009). Our research adds to this body of knowledge by suggesting that this escalation from lower to higher commitment consumer activism is also explained by an intrinsic motivational shift in activists’ personal goals. By engaging in lower- commitment forms of action, consumer activists may grow in their awareness and 175 comprehension of the pain that corporate victims experience or enhance their appreciation for other activists who are more invested in changing the status quo. Over time, this initial experience can spur network solidarity goals, which in turn, facilitates the adoption of higher- commitment behaviors. However, the cross-sectional nature of our study limits our ability to make empirical claims concerning any longitudinal changes in consumer motivational patterns. 176 CHAPTER NINE: GENERAL DISCUSSION The study of personal goals as a motivational driver has gained growing attention among consumer activism scholars. However, knowledge advancement is hindered by the need for a reliable and valid scale that can measure consumer activists’ personally motivated goals. Extant measures have some critical limitations. First, they were developed in the context of boycotting only, which limits their application to other activist-like behaviors. Second, they conflated different motivational constructs, creating content and construct validity problems. Third, extant measures were proposed without systematically investigating construct breadth and dimensionality. This is a crucial step in scale development because it increases researchers’ confidence that relevant personal goals have been adequately identified and translated into a measurement protocol. This dissertation addresses these limitations by proposing a measurement scale of consumer activism personal goals that observes best practices in scale development in the social sciences – the Consumer Activism Motivations Scale (CAMS). Following best practices in scale development (Carpenter, 2008; Churchill, 1979; DeVellis, 2012; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011; Terblanceh & Boshoff, 2008), three studies were performed as part of this doctoral dissertation research, which aimed to conceptualize and measure consumer activism motivations from an anti-brand, goal-oriented perspective. Study 1 comprises three main phases, in-depth interviews with consumer activists, a panel discussion with experts, and cognitive interviews with consumer activists. Altogether, Study 1 investigated the theoretical breadth of the construct and its dimensions. The study helped define the conceptual dimensions in connection with the perspective of consumer activists and past research findings. The richness in meaning gained during this process facilitated the generation of measurement items with greater content validity. From Study 1, 68 measurement 177 items were created indicating five consumer activists’ personally motivated goals: brand punishment, business reformation, consumer duty, network solidarity, and virtuous self. Subsequently, in Study 2, these were submitted to EFA, and a reliability assessment was performed. The study relied on the survey responses from 408 participants recruited by a marketing research company through quota sampling. Based on the results, the scale length was successfully optimized to 20 items, in which each personal goal is indicated by four measurement items. In Study 3, the optimized scale, which we refer to as CAMS, was then submitted to a CFA and a thorough validity assessment. This was accomplished using data from an independent sample of 458 participants recruited through a similar protocol as that employed in Study 2. The CAMS was also assessed for convergent, discriminant, nomological, and predictive validity. Results provided statistical evidence that the CAMS is reliable and valid. Our findings demonstrate that consumer activism is a goal-oriented behavior motivated by five main personal goals. This corroborated the proposed conceptualization of consumer activism as a goal-oriented behavior directed against a company concerning an issue of personal relevance. This research proposes a comprehensive reconceptualization of consumer activism motivations. First, this research shows that consumer activism goals represent a unique motivational construct conceptually distinct from other motivational constructs, such as collective efficacy and emotional arousal – a common issue detected in previous measurement scales. Second, this dissertation provided empirical evidence that consumer activism motives concerning personal goals is a multidimensional, interrelated construct. In the boycott literature, dichotomous conceptualizations have gained popularity, such as instrumental and non- instrumental (Friedman, 1991), or yet make a difference and self-enhancement motives (John & Klein, 2003; Klein et al., 2004). 178 This dissertation adds to a more recent body of knowledge that has indicated that consumer activism motivations are better conceptualized as a multidimensional construct (Braunsberger & Buckler, 2011; Makarem & Jae, 2016; Nguyen et al., 2018). Moreover, based on the reviewed literature, this is the first scale developed based on an extensive examination of real-world consumer activists’ experiences and perceptions. Through in-depth interviews, we were able to tap into the lived experiences of consumer activists who have taken action against different brands across multiple issues through multiple behaviors. This enabled the reconceptualization of past motivational dimensions and the detection of novel dimensions in creating a reliable, valid, yet parsimonious measurement protocol. The CAMS was designed as a tool to help researchers and practitioners detect, measure, and compare consumer activists’ personal goals across a broader range of consumer activism behaviors. Moreover, this scale can assist researchers and practitioners in predicting various behavioral and perceptual outcomes in the context of consumer activism and better understand the interplay of issue involvement, perceived collective efficacy, and brand hate in eliciting different goals. From an applied perspective, the CAMS could be used by corporations and advocacy groups. This scale can help corporations segment consumer activists based on their personal goals. This goal-oriented segmentation can be used to 1) estimate the likelihood of different activist-like behaviors to emerge in response to a brand transgression, 2) examine how consumers attribute blame to the company based on salient personal goals, and 3) identify optimal corporate strategies to respond to consumer activists’ grievances and demands. Advocacy groups may also utilize the CAMS to design persuasive activism communication campaigns. Based on the focal behavior a campaign aims to elicit, communication messages could emphasize the consumer activists’ goals that are more strongly predictive of the selected 179 behavior. For example, if the focal behavior is boycotting, activism communication could emphasize brand punishment and business reformation aspects. On the other hand, if the goal is to encourage consumers to protest via picketing, then a network solidarity appeal might be more effective. Despite the significant theoretical and practical implications of the proposed scale discussed above, the nomological model and the predictive validity findings have a significant impact that is worth discussing more in depth. Drawing from the Motivational Systems Theory (Ford, 1992), this dissertation more clearly defined the conceptual boundaries across motivational constructs (personal goals, emotional arousal, collective efficacy, and issue involvement), which had been conflated in previous conceptualizations and measures. In doing so, this dissertation proposes a larger nomological network of consumer activism motivations that distinguishes measures of issue involvement, emotional arousal (brand hate), perceived collective efficacy, and personal goals. The proposed nomological model demonstrates the interplay across issue involvement, brand hate, and perceived collective efficacy in influencing consumer activists’ goals. By observing fundamental conceptual differences across motivational constructs, this nomological model makes a novel contribution to the consumer activism literature. The model shows that consumer activism is differently influenced by the self-relevance of the violated issue, the negative affective response to the brand transgression, and perceptions about the collective action efficacy. These results have implications for consumer activism message framing. When designing an activism campaign communication, campaign organizers must decide the best framing strategy (thematic vs. episodic framing) to convey information about a corporate transgression to 180 elicit public adherence (Micheletti & Stolle, 2007). Thematic framing connects the transgression to a broader context of the issue that was violated by a business entity, which may trigger issue- related cognitions. Episodic framing more strongly focuses on the transgression itself, which might emphasize brand-related cognitions and emotions. Thus, different framing strategies may influence consumer activism through issue involvement and brand hate, which, in turn, are expected to activate distinct personal goals. This represents an important line of investigation for future research. In addition, the predictive validity results demonstrate that consumer activists’ behavioral choices are partially explained by the goals they aim to achieve. When consumers aim to punish the brand or reform business practices, they are more likely to resort to boycotting and petition signing. However, they are more likely to utilize higher-commitment behaviors when they aim to demonstrate solidarity and empathy toward others. These findings illustrate the theoretical and practical importance of looking beyond boycotting. Boycotting is a lower-commitment form of activism mainly oriented by brand-centered goals – brand punishment and business reformation. Brand-centered goals represent only two of the five identified goals. The other goals – consumer duty, network solidarity, and virtuous self, are pivotal in spurring other forms of action. The impact of network solidarity on higher-commitment activist-like behaviors represents a critical finding. Network solidarity represents consumer activists’ goal of demonstrating empathy and solidarity toward corporate victims and other activists. Network solidarity toward corporate victims indicates that certain consumer activism actions may also be perceived as prosocial behaviors and not only contentious actions against a brand. Prosocial behaviors denote voluntary actions that are enacted with the intention to create benefits for others (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987). Furthermore, network solidarity toward other activists suggests that 181 some forms of consumer activism may strongly rely on the construction of a collective identity among activists. As previously discussed, collective identity construction enables collective action formation, as proposed by new social movement theory (Melucci, 1985). Thus, the creation of a shared collective identity among consumer activists might be important to spur some higher-commitment behaviors, such as picketing, use of physical materials, and participation in activism online groups. Whereas specific lower-commitment actions, such as boycotting, may not directly benefit from the construction of a collective identity. The findings presented in this dissertation also invite scholars to expand and reevaluate the categorization of some activism behaviors as purely as slacktivism or clicktivism (McCafferty, 2011; Morozov, 2009; Skoric, 2012). These terms have been used to denote low- effort activism behaviors. Our findings show a more complex landscape in which activism effort is relative to the socio-economic context of the activist. For instance, in Study 1, consumer activists verbalized that their socio-economic context affects the frequency of their activism and their behavioral choices. In Study 3, we also found that income and education have a significant positive effect on some activism behaviors. Thus, we argue that the classification of activist-like behaviors based on an absolute threshold of behavioral effort offers an incomplete perspective about activism that ignores the social reality of activists. This dissertation research is not without limitations. It is essential to acknowledge that we exclusively relied on US participants across all studies. This is warranted given the long history of consumer movements in the country (Hawkins, 2010) and the growing salience and frequency of consumer activism campaigns in the past few years in the US (Heldman, 2017). Still, future studies should examine the scale performance in other geographical and cultural contexts. For instance, a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis could determine to what extent consumer 182 activism personal goals’ latent structure and average scores can be compared across markets. Future studies could also investigate how personal goals change and evolve during the duration of a consumer activism campaign in the context of the many challenges that impact the evolution of collective consumer action. In addition, as discussed above, future studies could explore how consumer activists’ personal goals influence their response to and the effectiveness of 1) different collective action frames and campaign message appeals in spurring movement adherence and 2) corporate communication strategies in eliciting blame attributions and brand forgiveness. 183 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004). When Good Brands Do Bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1086/383419 Ab Hamid, M. R., Sami, W., & Mohmad Sidek, M. H. (2017). Discriminant Validity Assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT Criterion. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 890, 012163. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742- 6596/890/1/012163 Abosag, I., & F., F. M. (2014). The influence of religiously motivated consumer boycotts on brand image, loyalty and product judgment. European Journal of Marketing, 48(11/12), 2262–2283. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-12-2013-0737 Aggarwal, P. (2004). The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Attitudes and Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1086/383426 Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. Albrecht, C.-M., Backhaus, C., Gurzki, H., & Woisetschläger, D. M. (2013). Drivers of Brand Extension Success: What Really Matters for Luxury Brands: LUXURY BRAND EXTENSIONS. Psychology & Marketing, 30(8), 647–659. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20635 Albrecht, C.-M., Campbell, C., Heinrich, D., & Lammel, M. (2013). Exploring why consumers engage in boycotts: Toward a unified model. Journal of Public Affairs, 13(2), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1473 Ali, B. J. (2021). Impact of consumer animosity, boycott participation, boycott motivation, and product judgment on purchase readiness or aversion of Kurdish consumers in Iraq. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 55(2), 504–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12350 Anderl, F. (2022). Global or local solidarity? That’s the wrong question: relationality, aspiration and the in-between of feminist activism in Southeast Asia. Globalizations, 19(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1838759 Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2016). An Extended Model of Moral Outrage at Corporate Social Irresponsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2487-y Azur, M. J., Stuart, E. A., Frangakis, C., & Leaf, P. J. (2011). Multiple imputation by chained equations: What is it and how does it work? International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 20(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.329 Baek, Y. M. (2010). To Buy or Not to Buy: Who are Political Consumers? What do they Think and How do they Participate? Political Studies, 58(5), 1065–1086. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00832.x 184 Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior: A Test of Some Key Hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 21. Bagozzi, R. P., & Foxall, G. R. (1996). Construct validation of a measure of adaptive-innovative cognitive styles in consumption. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(3), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(96)00010-9 Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing and Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic Construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(3), 459–489. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392322 Bagozzi, R. P., & Youjae, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of Human Agency Through Collective Efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10/bt235t Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a Psychology of Human Agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x Barry, R., Turner, M. M., Heo, R., Ye, Q., & Jang, Y. (2022, May). Development and Validation of the Commitment to Social Activism Scale. Annual ICA Conference, Paris. Baumann, S., Engman, A., & Johnston, J. (2015). Political consumption, conventional politics, and high cultural capital: Shopping for change? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(5), 413–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12223 Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611 Bennett, E. A., Cordner, A., Klein, P. T., Savell, S., & Baiocchi, G. (2013). Disavowing Politics: Civic Engagement in an Era of Political Skepticism. American Journal of Sociology, 119(2), 518–548. https://doi.org/10.1086/674006 Bennett, W. L. (2012). The Personalization of Politics: Political Identity, Social Media, and Changing Patterns of Participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212451428 Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768. Bennett, W. L., Segerberg, A., & Walker, S. (2014). Organization in the crowd: Peer production in large-scale networked protests. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2), 232– 260. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.870379 Bergkvist, L., & Langner, T. (2019). Construct heterogeneity and proliferation in advertising 185 research. International Journal of Advertising, 38(8), 1286–1302. https://doi.org/10/gj3w9p Bernard, A. (2017). Cultural activism as resource: Pedagogies of resistance and solidarity. Journal of Postcolonial Writing, 53(3), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449855.2017.1337690 Berridge, K. C. (2004). Motivation concepts in behavioral neuroscience. Physiology & Behavior, 81(2), 179–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2004.02.004 Blair, J., & Conrad, F. (2011). Sample Size for Cognitive Interview Pretesting. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 636–658. https://doi.org/10.2307/41288411 Bolles, R. C. (1972). Reinforcement, expectancy, and learning. Psychological Review, 79(5), 394–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033120 Bougie, R., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2003). Angry Customers don’t Come Back, They Get Back: The Experience and Behavioral Implications of Anger and Dissatisfaction in Services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(4), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070303254412 Braunsberger, K., & Buckler, B. (2011). What motivates consumers to participate in boycotts: Lessons from the ongoing Canadian seafood boycott. Journal of Business Research, 64(1), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.12.008 Buechler, S. M. (1995). New Social Movement Theories. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(3), 441–464. Buuren, S. van, & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. (2011). mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 2–67. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03 Cabrera, N. L. (2012). Working through Whiteness: White, Male College Students Challenging Racism. The Review of Higher Education, 35(3), 375–401. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0020 Cabrera, N. L., Matias, C. E., & Montoya, R. (2017). Activism or slacktivism? The potential and pitfalls of social media in contemporary student activism. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(4), 400–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000061 Cammaerts, B. (2007). Activism and Media. In B. Cammaerts & C. Nico (Eds.), Reclaiming the Media: Communication rights and democratic media roles (pp. 217–224). Intellect. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81. Campbell, M. C., & Winterich, K. P. (2018). A Framework for the Consumer Psychology of Morality in the Marketplace. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(2), 167–179. 186 https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1038 Carpenter, S. (2008). How Online Citizen Journalism Publications and Online Newspapers Utilize the Objectivity Standard and Rely on External Sources. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(3), 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900808500304 Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten Steps in Scale Development and Reporting: A Guide for Researchers. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583 Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 210–224. Center For Climate Change Communication. (2021). Consumer Activism on Global Warming. George Mason Unversity. https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/12/consumer-activism-on-global-warming-september-2021.pdf Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834 Chesebro, J. W., & Borisoff, D. J. (2007). What Makes Qualitative Research Qualitative? Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 8(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17459430701617846 Churchill, G. A. (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150876 Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026. Cibelli, K. L. (2017). The Effects of Respondent Commitment and Feedback on Response Quality in Online Surveys [University of Michigan]. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/136981/kcibelli_1.pdf?sequence =1 Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing Validity: Basic Issues in Objective Scale Development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. Copeland, L. (2014a). Value Change and Political Action: Postmaterialism, Political Consumerism, and Political Participation. American Politics Research, 42(2), 257–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X13494235 Copeland, L. (2014b). Conceptualizing Political Consumerism: How Citizenship Norms Differentiate Boycotting from Buycotting. Political Studies, 62(1_suppl), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12067 187 Copeland, L. (2014c). Conceptualizing Political Consumerism: How Citizenship Norms Differentiate Boycotting from Buycotting. Political Studies, 62(1_suppl), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12067 Corning, A. F., & Myers, D. J. (2002). Individual Orientation Toward Engagement in Social Action. Political Psychology, 23(4), 703–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00304 Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7275/JYJ1-4868 Couper, M. P. (2011). The Future of Modes of Data Collection. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(5), 889–908. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr046 Couper, M. P., & de leeuw, E. (2003). Nonresponse in cross-cultural and cross-national surveys. Cross-Cultural Survey Methods, 2003. De Mooij, M. (2019). Global Marketing & Adverstising. Understanding Cultural Paradoxes (5th ed.). Sage. de Moor, J. (2017). Lifestyle politics and the concept of political participation. Acta Politica, 52(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2015.27 de Zúñiga, H. G., Copeland, L., & Bimber, B. (2014). Political consumerism: Civic engagement and the social media connection. New Media & Society, 16(3), 488–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487960 DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale Development. Theory and Application. (1st ed., Vol. 26). Sage Publications. Diani, M., & Porta, D. della. (2006). Social Movements: An Introduction (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. (1987). The Relation of Empathy to Prosocial and Related Behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91 Ettenson, R., & Klein, J. G. (2005). The fallout from French nuclear testing in the South Pacific: A longitudinal study of consumer boycotts. International Marketing Review, 22(2), 199– 224. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330510593278 Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2011). Exploratory Factor Analysis. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199734177.001.0001 Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Psychological Research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10/b2ztct Farah, M. F., & Newman, A. J. (2010). Exploring consumer boycott intelligence using a socio- 188 cognitive approach. Journal of Business Research, 63(4), 347–355. https://doi.org/10/d45pzk Feinberg, F. M., Kinnear, T. C., & Taylor, J. R. (2008). Modern Marketing Research: Concepts, Methods, and Cases (Second Edition). Cengage Learning. Fernandes, D. (2020). Politics at the Mall: The Moral Foundations of Boycotts. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 39(4), 494–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915620943178 Fetscherin, M., & Sampedro, A. (2019). Brand forgiveness. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 28(5), 633–652. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-04-2018-1845 Ford, M. (1992). Motivating Humans: Goals, Emotions, and Personal Agency Beliefs. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483325361 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural Equation Models With Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980 Forno, F., & Ceccarini, L. (2006). From the Street to the Shops: The Rise of New Forms of Political Actions in Italy1. South European Society and Politics, 11(2), 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608740600645501 Fowler, F. J. (1995). Improving Survey Questions. Design and Evaluation. (1st ed., Vol. 38). Sage Publications. Friedman, M. (1985). Consumer Boycotts in the United States, 1970-1980: Contemporary Events in Historical Perspective. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 19(1), 96–117. Friedman, M. (1991). Consumer Boycotts: A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda. Journal of Social Issues, 47(1), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 4560.1991.tb01817.x Friedman, M. (1995). On Promoting a Sustainable Future Through Consumer Activism. Journal of Social Issues, 51(4), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01355.x Friedman, M. (2002). Consumer boycotts: Effecting change through the marketplace and media. Routledge. Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1984). On the meaning of within-factor correlated measurement errors. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(1), 572–580. Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 25(2), 186–192. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172650 Glazer, A., Kanniainen, V., & Poutvaara, P. (2010). Firms’ ethics, consumer boycotts, and signalling. European Journal of Political Economy, 26(3), 340–350. 189 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2009.12.002 Goodwin, J., & Jasper, J. M. (Eds.). (2014). The social movements reader: Cases and concepts. John Wiley & Sons Incorporated. Grappi, S., Romani, S., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2013). Consumer response to corporate irresponsible behavior: Moral emotions and virtues. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1814–1821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.002 Green, S. B., Lissitz, R. W., & Mulaik, S. A. (1977). Limitations of Coefficient Alpha as an Index of Test Unidimensionality1. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37(4), 827–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447703700403 Grégoire, Y., & Fisher, R. J. (2008). Customer betrayal and retaliation: When your best customers become your worst enemies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0054-0 Grégoire, Y., Ghadami, F., Laporte, S., Sénécal, S., & Larocque, D. (2018). How can firms stop customer revenge? The effects of direct and indirect revenge on post-complaint responses. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(6), 1052–1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0597-2 Grégoire, Y., Tripp, T. M., & Legoux, R. (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. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.6.18 Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey Methodology (Second Edition). John Wiley & Sons. Guèvremont, A., & Grohmann, B. (2018). Does brand authenticity alleviate the effect of brand scandals? Journal of Brand Management, 25(4), 322–336. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-017-0084-y Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60–72. Gutman, J. (1997). Means-End Chains as Goal Hierarchies. Psychology & Marketing, 14(6), 545–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199709)14:6<545::AID- MAR2>3.0.CO;2-7 Haenfler, R., Johnson, B., & Jones, E. (2012). Lifestyle Movements: Exploring the Intersection of Lifestyle and Social Movements. Social Movement Studies, 11(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2012.640535 Haidt, J. (2008). Morality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00063.x Hawkins, R. A. (2010). Boycotts, buycotts and consumer activism in a global context: An 190 overview. Management & Organizational History, 5(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744935910361644 Heeringa, S. G., West, B. T., & Berglund, P. A. (2010). Applied Survey Data Analysis. Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. Heldman, C. (2017). Protest Politics in the Marketplace. Consumer Activism in the Corporate Age. Cornell University Press. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 Hoffmann, S. (2011). Anti‐consumption as a means to save jobs. European Journal of Marketing, 45(11/12), 1702–1714. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561111167342 Hoffmann, S. (2013). Are boycott motives rationalizations? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(3), 214–222. https://doi.org/10/gm445k Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social Identity, Self-Categorization, and the Communication of Group Norms. Communication Theory, 16(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 2885.2006.00003.x Hollenbeck, C. R., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006). Consumer Activism on the Internet: The Role of Anti-brand Communities. Advances in Consumer Research, 33, 479–485. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447 Hsu, T., & Lutz, E. (2020, August 1). More Than 1,000 Companies Boycotted Facebook. Did It Work? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/01/business/media/facebook-boycott.html Hunt, S. A., & Benford, R. D. (2004). Collective identity, solidarity, and commitment. The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, 433(57). Jackson, D. L. (2003). Revisiting Sample Size and Number of Parameter Estimates: Some Support for the N:q Hypothesis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(1), 128–141. https://doi.org/10/dxwpjr Jamovi. (2022). The Jamovi Project (Version 2.3). https://www.jamovi.org Ji, Y., & Kim, S. (2020). Crisis-induced public demand for regulatory intervention in the social media era: Examining the moderating roles of perceived government controllability and consumer collective efficacy. New Media & Society, 22(6), 959–983. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819874473 John, A., & Klein, J. G. (2003). The Boycott Puzzle: Consumer Motivations for Purchase 191 Sacrifice. Management Science, 49(9), 1196–1209. Johnson, A. R., Matear, M., & Thomson, M. (2011). A Coal in the Heart: Self-Relevance as a Post-Exit Predictor of Consumer Anti-Brand Actions. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1086/657924 Jöreskog, K. (1971). Statistical Analysis of Sets of Congeneric Tests. Psychometrika, 36, 109– 133. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291393 Kam, C. D., & Deichert, M. (2020). Boycotting, Buycotting, and the Psychology of Political Consumerism. The Journal of Politics, 82(1), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1086/705922 Keeter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M., & Jenkins, K. (2002). The civic and political health of the nation: A generational portrait (p. 49). The Pew Research Center, Rutgers University, and DePaul University. Khamitov, M., Grégoire, Y., & Suri, A. (2020). A systematic review of brand transgression, service failure recovery and product-harm crisis: Integration and guiding insights. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(3), 519–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00679-1 Kim, Y. R. (2021). Queer Protest! Solidarity and the Formation of Minority Politics in South Korea. Korea Journal, 61(4), 20–43. https://doi.org/10.25024/kj.2021.61.4.20 Klein, J. G., Smith, N. C., & John, A. (2002). Exploring Motivations for Participation in a Consumer Boycott. Advances in Consumer Research, 29(1), 363–369. Klein, J. G., Smith, N. C., & John, A. (2004). Why We Boycott: Consumer Motivations for Boycott Participation. Journal of Marketing, 68(3), 92–109. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.3.92.34770 Kline, R. B. (2013). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. In Y. Petscher, C. Schatschneider, & D. L. Compton (Eds.), Applied Quantitative Analysis in Education and the Social Sciences. Taylor & Francis Group. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/michstate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1143716 Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press. Kozinets, R. V., & Handelman, J. (1998). Ensouling Consumption: A Netnographic Exploration of the Meaning of Boycotting Behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 475–480. Kozinets, R. V., & Handelman, J. M. (2004). Adversaries of Consumption: Consumer Movements, Activism, and Ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 691–704. https://doi.org/10.1086/425104 Kristofferson, K., White, K., & Peloza, J. (2014). The Nature of Slacktivism: How the Social Observability of an Initial Act of Token Support Affects Subsequent Prosocial Action. 192 Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 1149–1166. https://doi.org/10.1086/674137 Kyriazos, T. A. (2018). Applied Psychometrics: Sample Size and Sample Power Considerations in Factor Analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in General. Psychology, 09(08), 2207–2230. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.98126 Laas, I. (2006). Self-Actualization and Society: A New Application for an Old Theory. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 46(1), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167805281162 Lee, F. L. F. (2010). The perceptual bases of collective efficacy and protest participation: The case of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(3), 392–411. Legocki, K. V., Walker, K. L., & Kiesler, T. (2020). Sound and Fury: Digital Vigilantism as a Form of Consumer Voice. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 39(2), 169–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915620902403 Lenton, T. M., Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., Rahmstorf, S., Richardson, K., Steffen, W., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2019). Climate tipping points—Too risky to bet against. Nature, 575(7784), 592–595. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0 Li, Y., Wen, Z., Hau, K.-T., Yuan, K.-H., & Peng, Y. (2020). Effects of Cross-loadings on Determining the Number of Factors to Retain. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(6), 841–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1745075 Lindenmeier, J., Schleer, C., & Pricl, D. (2012). Consumer outrage: Emotional reactions to unethical corporate behavior. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1364–1373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.09.022 Locke, R. M. (2003). The promise and perils of globalization: The case of Nike. Management: Inventing and Delivering Its Future, 39, 40. Lorenz, K. Z. (1950). The comparative method in studying innate behavior patterns. Makarem, S. C., & Jae, H. (2016). Consumer Boycott Behavior: An Exploratory Analysis of Twitter Feeds. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 50(1), 193–223. https://doi.org/10/gh55fk Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2012). The Ruling Class and the Ruling Ideas. In M. G. Durham & D. M. Kellner (Eds.), Media and Cultural Studies: KeyWorks (Second Edition, pp. 31–33). Wiley-Blackwell. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. McAdam, D., Tarrow, S. G., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge University Press. McCafferty, D. (2011). Activism vs. Slacktivism. Communications of the ACM, 54(12), 17–19. 193 https://doi.org/10.1145/2043174.2043182 McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). The trend of social movements in America: Professionalization and resource mobilization. Melucci, A. (1980). The new social movements: A theoretical approach. Social Science Information, 19(2), 199–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901848001900201 Melucci, A. (1995). The Process of Collective Identity. In H. Johnston & B. Klandermans (Eds.), Social Movements and Culture. University of Minnesota Press. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294825 Micheletti, M. (2003). Political Virtue and Shopping. Individuals, consumerism, and collective action. Palgrave Macmillan. Micheletti, M., & Stolle, D. (2007). Mobilizing Consumers to Take Responsibility for Global Social Justice. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611(1), 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716206298712 Micheletti, M., & Stolle, D. (2012a). Sustainable Citizenship and the New Politics of Consumption. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 88–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212454836 Micheletti, M., & Stolle, D. (2012b). Sustainable Citizenship and the New Politics of Consumption. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 88–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212454836 Millee, N. E., & Kessen, M. L. (1952). Reward Effects of Food Via Stomach Fistula Compared with Those of Food Via Mouth. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 45(6), 555–564. Minocher, X. (2019). Online consumer activism: Challenging companies with Change.org. New Media & Society, 21(3), 620–638. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818803373 Morozov, E. (2009, May 9). The brave new world of slacktivism. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/05/19/the-brave-new-world-of-slacktivism/ Moskalenko, S., & Mccauley, C. (2009). Measuring Political Mobilization: The Distinction Between Activism and Radicalism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 21, 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546550902765508 Mowen, J. C., & Voss, K. E. (2008). On building better construct measures: Implications of a general hierarchical model. Psychology & Marketing, 25(6), 485–505. https://doi.org/10/b7mz8d Muraro, I. S. & Rifon, N. J. (In Press). A Typology of Consumer Activism: Resolving Conceptual Inexactitude and Systematizing the Nuances of Anti-Brand Behaviors. 194 Advances in Advertising Research Series (Vol. XII). Muraro, I. S., Thorson, K., & Huddleston, P. T. (In Press). Spurring and Sustaining Online Consumer Activism: The Role of Cause Support and Brand Relationship in Microlevel Action Frames. Journal of Brand Management. Murray, J. S. (2018). Multiple Imputation: A Review of Practical and Theoretical Findings. Statistical Science, 33(2). https://doi.org/10.1214/18-STS644 Neufeld, K. H. S., Starzyk, K. B., & Gaucher, D. (2019). Political solidarity: A theory and a measure. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 7(2), 726–765. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v7i2.1058 Newell, S. J., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2001). The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 52(3), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00104-6 Newman, D. A. (2014). Missing data: Five practical guidelines. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 372–411. Nguyen, T., Ngo, H., Ngo, P., & Kang, G.-D. (2018). Understanding the Motivations Influencing Ecological Boycott Participation: An Exploratory Study in Viet Nam. Sustainability, 10(12), 4786. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124786 Norris M & Lecavalier L. (2010). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in developmental disability psychological research. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 40(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-0816-2 Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a Scale to Measure Consumer Skepticism Toward Advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159–186. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_03 O’Cass, A., & Griffin, D. (2006). Antecedents and Consequences of Social Issue Advertising Believability. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 15(1/2), 87–104. https://doi.org/10/d42mnr Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers’ Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1990.10673191 Olson, E. D., & Park, H. (Jason). (2019). The Impact of Religious Freedom Laws on Destination Image. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 60(4), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965518815659 Oyserman, D. (2001). Self-concept and identity. In A. Tesser & N. Schwarz (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 499–517). Malden. Pandey, S. P., Ahmad, Y., & Gautam, A. (2021). Consumer Motivations for Boycott. Pacific 195 Business Review, 14(6), 51–63. Paybarah, A. (2022, February 26). Putin’s critics call for boycotts of Russian vodka. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/26/world/europe/russian-vodka-brands- boycott.html Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006 Pew Research Center. (2006, August 3). Pragmatic Americans Liberal and Conservative on Social Issues. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2006/08/03/pragmatic-americans-liberal-and- conservative-on-social-issues/ Pew Research Center. (2016, June 22). Partisanship and Political Animosity in 2016. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/5-views-of-parties- positions-on-issues-ideologies/ Pew Research Center. (2020, July 13). Activism on social media varies by race and ethnicity, age, political party. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2020/07/13/activism-on-social-media-varies-by-race-and-ethnicity-age-political- party/ Pincus, J. (2004). The consequences of unmet needs: The evolving role of motivation in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(4), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.149 Qualtrics. (2023). Qualtrics. https://www.qualtrics.com/uk/ Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2016). Recommendations for Creating Better Concept Definitions in the Organizational, Behavioral, and Social Sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 19(2), 159–203. https://doi.org/10/f8fqdb Raghunathan, T. E. (2004). What Do We Do with Missing Data? Some Options for Analysis of Incomplete Data. Annual Review of Public Health, 25(1), 99–117. https://doi.org/10/dn85fr Rahbari, L. (2021). In Her Shoes: Transnational Digital Solidarity With Muslim Women, or the Hijab? Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 112(2), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12376 Rauschnabel, P. A., Kammerlander, N., & Ivens, B. S. (2016). Collaborative Brand Attacks in Social Media: Exploring the Antecedents, Characteristics, and Consequences of a New Form of Brand Crises. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 24(4), 381–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2016.1205452 Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Introduction to Psychometric Theory. Routledge. 196 Reid, A., & Gough, S. (2000). Guidelines for Reporting and Evaluating Qualitative Research: What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research, 6(1), 59–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/135046200110494 Revelle, W. (2022). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research [Manual]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych Reynolds, P. D. (1971). A Primer in Theory Construction (1st ed.). Macmillan. Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes and values: A theory of organization and change. Jossey- Bass,. Romani, S., Grappi, S., Zarantonello, L., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2015). The revenge of the consumer! How brand moral violations lead to consumer anti-brand activism. Journal of Brand Management, 22(8), 658–672. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2015.38 Rönkkö, M., & Cho, E. (2022). An Updated Guideline for Assessing Discriminant Validity. Organizational Research Methods, 25(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120968614 Ross Sorkin, A., & Giang, V. (2022). Bill Browder on Putin, Sanctions and How to End the War. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/09/business/dealbook/09db- browder-russia-santions.html Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 2–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02 Rotman, D., Vieweg, S., Yardi, S., Chi, E., Preece, J., Shneiderman, B., Pirolli, P., & Glaisyer, T. (2011). From slacktivism to activism: Participatory culture in the age of social media. Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA ’11, 819. https://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979543 Routledge, P., Cumbers, A., & Nativel, C. (2007). Grassrooting Network Imaginaries: Relationality, Power, and Mutual Solidarity in Global Justice Networks. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 39(11), 2575–2592. https://doi.org/10.1068/a38338 Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2009). Interviewing in qualitative research: The one-to- one interview. International Journal of Therapy & Rehabilitation, 16(6), 309–314. Ryan, K., Gannon-Slater, N., & Culbertson, M. J. (2012). Improving Survey Methods With Cognitive Interviews in Small- and Medium-Scale Evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(3), 414–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214012441499 Ryu, E. (2011). Effects of skewness and kurtosis on normal-theory based maximum likelihood test statistic in multilevel structural equation modeling. Behavior Research Methods, 43(4), 1066–1074. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0115-7 197 Sayin, E., & Gürhan-Canlı, Z. (2015). Feeling Attached to Symbolic Brands within the Context of Brand Transgressions. Review of Marketing Research, 12, 233–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1548-643520150000012009 Sen, S., Gurhan Canli, Z., & Morwitz, V. (2001). Withholding Consumption: A Social Dilemma Perspective on Consumer Boycotts. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 399–417. https://doi.org/10/bstpc8 Shah, D. V., Friedland, L. A., Wells, C., Kim, Y. M., & Rojas, H. (2012). Communication, Consumers, and Citizens: Revisiting the Politics of Consumption. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212456349 Sharpe, D. (2015). Chi-Square Test is Statistically Significant: Now What? Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 20. https://doi.org/10.7275/TBFA-X148 Shim, K., Cho, H., Kim, S., & Yeo, S. L. (2021). Impact of Moral Ethics on Consumers’ Boycott Intentions: A Cross-Cultural Study of Crisis Perceptions and Responses in the United States, South Korea, and Singapore. Communication Research, 48(3), 401–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218793565 Sinha, J., & Lu, F.-C. (2016). “I” value justice, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal effects on post-transgression consumer forgiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(2), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.002 Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review. The Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287–300. Skoric, M. M. (2012). What is slack about slacktivism. Methodological and Conceptual Issues in Cyber Activism Research, 77, 77–92. Smith, N. C. (1990). Morality and the Market: Consumer Pressure for Corporate Accountability. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315743745 Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K., & Smith, P. C. (2002). Issues and strategies for reducing the length of self-report scales. Personnel Psychology, 55(1). https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbig&AN=edsbig.A8490556 5&site=eds-live Stolle, D., Hooghe, M., & Micheletti, M. (2005). Politics in the Supermarket: Political Consumerism as a Form of Political Participation. International Political Science Review, 26(3), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512105053784 Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor’s Comments: Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 346–357. https://doi.org/10/gd57kv Suhud, U., Hajat, N., & Griandini, D. (2017). Animosity of Indonesian consumers against 198 foreign products. The 29th International Business Information Management Association (IBIMA) Conference, Vienna, Austria. Svirsky, M. (2010). Defining Activism. Deleuze Studies, 4(Supplement). https://doi.org/10/gkkhmz Tajfel, H. (1982). Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39. Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (Vol. 56, pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole. Tanwar, K., & Prasad, A. (2017). Employer brand scale development and validation: A second- order factor approach. Personnel Review, 46(2), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-03- 2015-0065 Tarrow, S. (2009). Power in Movement. Social Movements and Contentious Politics. (Second Edition). Cambridge University Press. Terblanceh, N. S., & Boshoff, C. (2008). Improved scale development in marketing. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 105–119. Thomas, Sandra P., & Pollio, H. R. (2001). Listening to Patients: A Phenomenological Approach to Nursing Research and Practice. Springer Publishing Company. Thorson, K., & Wang, L. (2020). Committed Participation or Flashes of Action? Mobilizing Public Attention to Climate on Twitter, 2011–2015. Environmental Communication, 14(3), 347–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1666727 Thurstone, L. L. (1931). MULTIPLE FACTOR ANALYSIS. Tilly, C. (1978). From Mobilization to Revolution. Addison-Wesley. Tinsley, H. E. A., & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 414–424. APA PsycArticles®. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.34.4.414 Toates, F. M. (1986). Motivational systems. CUP Archive. Touraine, A. (1985). An introduction to the study of social movements. Social Research, 749– 787. Trentmann, F. (2016, November 28). How Humans Became “Consumers”: A History. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/11/how-humans-became- consumers/508700/ Trump, R. K. (2014). Connected consumers’ responses to negative brand actions: The roles of 199 transgression self-relevance and domain. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 1824– 1830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.12.007 Turner, M. M. (2007). Using emotion in risk communication: The Anger Activism Model. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 114–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.11.013 Villagra, N., Monfort, A., & Méndez-Suárez, M. (2021). Firm value impact of corporate activism: Facebook and the stop hate for profit campaign. Journal of Business Research, 137, 319–326. https://doi.org/10/gm45v9 Wacker, J. G. (2004). A theory of formal conceptual definitions: Developing theory-building measurement instruments. Journal of Operations Management, 22(6), 629–650. https://doi.org/10/b86t2j Wacker, J. G. (2008). A Conceptual Understanding of Requirements for Theory-Building Research: Guidelines for Scientific Theory Building*. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44(3), 5–15. https://doi.org/10/bj5q3w Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8, 84–136. Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237 Woodside, A. G., & Chebat, J.-C. (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. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.1017 Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale Development Research: A Content Analysis and Recommendations for Best Practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127 Wu, A. D., Li, Z., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Decoding the Meaning of Factorial Invariance and Updating the Practice of Multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A Demonstration With TIMSS Data. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 12. https://doi.org/10.7275/MHQA-CD89 Xie, C., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2019). Consumer responses to corporate social irresponsibility: The role of moral emotions, evaluations, and social cognitions. Psychology & Marketing, 36(6), 565–586. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21197 Xie, C., Bagozzi, R. P., & Grønhaug, K. (2019). The impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer brand advocacy: The role of moral emotions, attitudes, and individual differences. Journal of Business Research, 95, 514–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.043 200 Yousaf, S., Razzaq, A., & Fan, X. (2021). Understanding tourists’ motivations to launch a boycott on social media: A case study of the #BoycottMurree campaign in Pakistan. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 27(4), 479–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766721993861 Yzer, M. (2013). Reasoned Action Theory. Persuasion as Belief-Based Behavior Change. In The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice. (pp. 120–136). SAGE Publications. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the Involvement Construct. The Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–352. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, Revision, and Application to Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1943.10673459 Zaltman, G., LeMasters, K., & Heffring, M. (1982). Theory construction in marketing: Some thoughts on thinking. John Wiley & Sons. Zoom Meetings: Video Conferencing With Chat. (2023). Zoom. https://zoom.us/ 201 APPENDIX A: SEMI-STRUCTRED, IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT FORM Research Participant Information and Consent Form Study Title: Consumer Activism Motivations Researcher: Dr. Nora Rifon, Professor, Michigan State University Contact Information: 404 Wilson Road, Room 316, East Lansing, MI 48824-1212, Email: rifon@msu.edu, Tel: 517.355.3295 BRIEF SUMMARY You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by a team of researchers at Michigan State University. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the research study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, including why you might or might not want to participate, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to discuss and ask the researchers any questions you may have. The purpose of the study is to understand people’s reasons for taking action against companies that engage in unethical business practices. To participate, you need to be at least 18 years old and be located in the United States. Your participation in this study will take about 60 minutes. This will be an online interview that will take place on Zoom, a video conference platform. The interview will be audiotaped and transcribed. You will also need a desktop computer, tablet, or smartphone with internet connection. We would also like to remind you that: • The microphone should be turned on for the duration of the interview. It would highly appreciate if you could keep your video on – the video will not be recorded. • You may want to download Zoom video conference app on your device before the interview: https://zoom.us/download#client_4meeting. It is also possible to participate without downloading the app through Zoom web client: https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/214629443-Getting-started-with-the- Zoom-web-client#h_01FGW753J4PVWY94DCEQQTAQ1Q. • Please prepare a quiet, comfortable space where you can be comfortable answering the interview questions. Your participation in this interview will help researchers create a measurement scale about people’s motivations to engage in activist-like behavior against companies. The interview will be conducted by a researcher. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH You are being asked to participate in a research study that aims to understand what motivates people to take action against companies that engage in unethical business practices. From this study, the researchers hope to develop a scale to measure consumers’ motivation to engage in 202 activist-like behaviors against companies. You have been contacted because you voluntarily provided your contact information in a prior study to participate in this interview. We plan to interview about 10-15 people in this study. WHAT YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DO You will be asked to participate in an online interview via Zoom, a video conference platform. To participate in the interview, you will need a computer, tablet, or smartphone with a reliable internet connection with Zoom installed. It would be best if you connect from a private space where you can talk freely. You will be asked questions about instances in which you took action against companies and reflect on the behaviors and your motivations to engage in those behaviors. You will not be provided with research findings, but, if published, the research findings might be available to you and the general public. To register for this interview, you will need to fill out this short registration survey and schedule an interview time. POTENTIAL BENEFITS You will not directly benefit from your participation in this study. However, your participation in this study may contribute to understanding what motivates consumers to engage in activist-like behaviors. POTENTIAL RISKS Your participation in this study is not expected to cause you any risks greater than those encountered in everyday life. There are no anticipated physical, psychological, or financial risks associated with participation. There is a risk of loss of confidentiality if someone other than the investigators obtains your information or your identity. Still, precautions will be taken to prevent this from happening. The confidentiality of your interview will be maintained as required by applicable law and to the degree permitted by the technology used. Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY The interview will happen in a password-protected virtual room on Zoom. Your identity, participation, and any information you provide that could identify you or others will remain confidential. This information will not be shared with anyone outside the research group and will only be used for research purposes. Only the researchers and IRB at Michigan State University will have access to the interview audio and transcript. The interview will be audio recorded for later data analysis. The audio file will be stored in a secured folder and deleted after the results are analyzed. The interview transcript will be kept for at least 3 years after the project closes. Any identifiable information will be redacted/removed from the interview transcript. For example, if you accidentally say your name, we will remove this from our transcripts. We might need to report participants’ age and gender in the research report. We will not identify you or use any information that would make it possible for anyone to identify you in any presentation or written 203 reports about this study. If it is okay with you, we might use direct quotes from you, but these would only be quoted as coming from a person of a certain label or title, such as “one woman of a certain age said.” YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW Participation is voluntary. Refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. • You have the right to say no. • You may change your mind at any time and withdraw. • You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY In exchange for your participation in our study, you will receive a payment of £GBP 20.00 (twenty British pounds) through Prolific. During the interview, you are expected to fully engage with the interview process, provide thoughtful answers, show genuine interest, be cordial toward the interviewer, and not engage in unrelated tasks or activities. In the case of frequent interruptions or low commitment, the researcher, at their own discretion, will end the interview, and participants will only receive the payment proportional to the elapsed time of the interview until termination. Payment is also dependent on the microphone being turned on during the interview. You may withdraw at any time without penalty. Participants who withdraw will receive payment proportional to the elapsed time of the interview. CONTACT INFORMATION If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, you can contact the researcher: Dr. Nora Rifon Professor, Michigan State University 404 Wilson Road, Room 316, East Lansing, MI 48824-1212 rifon@msu.edu Tel: 517.355.3295 If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 4000 Collins Rd, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT – WRITTEN AND VERBAL CONSENT Do you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study? [Yes, I consent /No, I do not 204 consent] You will indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by beginning this interview. If you have any questions or concerns regarding information in this consent form prior to an interview meeting, please contact Dr. Nora Rifon. 205 APPENDIX B: SEMI-STRUCTURED, IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW GUIDE Introduction IWER INSTRUCTIONS: Thank the participant and introduce themselves. Thank you [participant’s name] for agreeing to participate in this online interview. My name is [interviewer’s name]. Today, I am working on this project for researchers at Michigan State University, talking to different people to understand more about what people think and do against brands or firms when they do unethical things that can harm consumers, employees, people in general, and even the environment. During the interview, I will ask you some questions, but please feel free to expand your answers and talk freely about anything you think is relevant to share, even if I did not ask you specifically. This is supposed to be an informal conversation with no right or wrong answers. Do you have any questions before we begin? IWER INSTRUCTIONS: Get informed consent once again and start recording. Make sure the caption feature is on and working. Warm-Up (5’) Goal: Prime Rs to think about activism in general terms. 1. How would you describe the word activism to someone? What does the word activism mean to you? 2. What are some examples of activism you have heard of or maybe even participated in or supported? Main Questions – Part I (< 10’) Goal: Identify personal motivations associated with consumer activism, salient issues that prompted action, and language used to talk about behaviors and motives. 1. Think about a time you took action against a company. Describe to me the most memorable [repeat for most recent] situation in which you took a stand against a company because of their unethical or controversial decisions or business practices. CLARIFICATIONS [As needed]: • What about other forms of action beyond calling in a complaint to customer service? For example, boycotting, protesting, signing petitions, posting on social media, etc. • What about other unethical practices beyond product/service problems/recalls/failures? For example, business practices that harm the environment, exploit workers, or business decisions that go against your views on certain social or political issues, etc. PROBES: • When did it happen? • How did you learn about the firm’s conduct? 206 • What was the name of the company? • What did you do? What else? Anything else? • Did you ever talk about this with your close friends or family? What is/was their view on this? 2. Why did you take action? What were the reasons why you took action? PROBES: • Any other reason? Was there something you wanted to accomplish or feel by [list behaviors mentioned by the R]? • Why is [for each reason] important to you? What does [reason] mean to you? Main Questions – Part II (25’-35’) Goal: Exploring and refining dimensions representing the construct. Gain richness in meaning that could also inform survey measurement items. 1. ANGER EXPRESSION: [If the R shows anger during episodic recollection] Hearing you talk about that, it seems that you were angry, which is very common. Is that how you felt? PROBES: • Do you think that one of the reasons why you participated was to express your anger against the company? • How did you express your anger? How did it work for you? • Was that [anger you experienced] an important reason that motivated you to take action? • Why? [If the R does not show anger during episodic recollection] How did you feel when you learned about [brand transgression reported by the R]? PROBES: • Do you think that one of the reasons why you participated was to express your [feelings/emotions mentioned by the R] against the company? • How did you express your [feelings/emotions mentioned by the R]? • Was that [the anger/emotions you experienced] an important reason for you to take action? • Why? 2. ISSUE-CONNECTED DIMENSIONS: [If the R shows connection with/concern for cause/issue] Hearing you talk about that, it seems that you care a lot about [issue/cause]. Why is [issue/cause] important to you? [If the R does not show connection with/concern for cause/issue] To what extent is [issue/cause] important to you? 207 PROBES: • Do you think that one of the reasons why you participated was because of this connection you have with [issue/cause]? • Was this [connection with issue/cause] an important reason that motivated you to take action? • Why? • What other issues/causes feel personal to you/or you care about? a. CHANGING AND SHAPING REALITY: It seems that you wanted [Brand] to change its business practices. [OR] With your participation, did you aim to help force the [Brand] to change its business practices? PROBES: • What was it that you wanted to change? • Do you think that one of the reasons why you participated was because you wanted to change [brand’s] business practices? Is this something important to you? • Why? • What else did you want to change with your participation in this [campaign against brand]? Why? What else? b. PERSONAL COMMITMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY: It seems that advocating for [issue/cause] is something you take seriously. [OR] How seriously do you take/care [issue/cause]? PROBES: • Why is that? • Do you think that one of the reasons you participated was because you felt that you had a responsibility or duty to take action for [issue/cause]? • Was this an important reason that motivated you to take action? • Why? c. PERSONAL IDENTITY: When do you think you started to care/think about [issue/cause]? How is this concern for [issue/cause] present in your life nowadays? PROBES: [If the R shows high identification] Hearing you talk about that, it seems that your concern with [issue/cause] is almost part of who you are/is present in your life in many ways/is connected with your values. Is that how you see it too? • Do you think that one of the reasons that motivated you to take action was because you identify with [issue/cause]? • Was this an important reason that motivated you to take action? • Why? 208 3. FEEL BETTER: How did you feel about yourself after taking action? Did you feel good about yourself for taking action? PROBES: • Explain to me why participating in this campaign against [brand] made you feel good about yourself. • Do you think that one of the reasons why you participated was because you would feel good about yourself for taking action? • Was this an important reason for you to take action? • Why? 4. GUILTY AVOIDANCE: How do you think you would feel had you not done anything – if you had turned a blind eye to what the firm did? PROBES: • Do you think that one of the reasons you participated was because you did not want to feel [guilty/remorseful/have a bad conscience] for not taking action? • Was this an important reason for you to take action? • Why? • Has this ever happened to you – not being able to take action against a business’ unethical practices? • Did you regret not being able to do something at that time? • What else did you feel? 5. NETWORK SOLIDARITY Do you know if the campaign you participated in was successful at all? [If successful] What did they achieve to be successful? [If not successful] What would they have to achieve to be successful? PROBES: • Hearing you talk about that, it seems that you wanted the campaign against [Brand] to succeed. How did this desire for the campaign to succeed motivate you to take action? • Do you think that the larger the number of participants, the greater the chances are for a campaign against a business corporation to succeed? o How so? • You mentioned that you [actions cited by the R]. How do you think these actions may have helped to promote the campaign to other people? o How so? 209 o Was this [promoting the campaign to others/spreading information about brand transgression to others] something you had in mind when you took action? 6. WELL-BEING [In case of issues that may directly impact the R’s well-being] How do you think unethical business actions such as the one you took a stance against, if left unchecked, could impact people’s lives? PROBES: • Would there be any impact on you or your family? What would that be? o How did this motivate you to take action? • You mentioned that [corporate misconduct] could have/had an impact on [mention the impact: health, psychological, freedom, moral, etc.] o Do you think that one of the reasons that motivated you to take action was to protect [yourself/your family/people your care]? o Was this an important reason for you to take action? o Why? [In case of animal rights or other issues that may not directly impact the R’s well-being] How do you think the awareness of unethical business actions such as the one you took a stance against affected you personally? PROBES: • What was the impact for you? o Do you think that one of the reasons that motivated you to take action was to protect yourself from [mention the impact]? o Was this an important reason for you to take action? o Why? Closing Questions (2’) Goal: Understand the language and the associated meaning of the terms “consumer activism” and “consumer activist.” 1. What is consumer activism to you? What does consumer activism mean to you? 2. Do you consider yourself to be a consumer activist? [Probe: Why/Why not?] IWER INSTRUCTIONS: Thank the participant and stop recording. 210 APPENDIX C: COGNITIVE INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT FORM Research Participant Information and Consent Form Study Title: Consumer Activism Motivations Researcher: Dr. Nora Rifon, Professor, Michigan State University Contact Information: 404 Wilson Road, Room 316, East Lansing, MI 48824-1212, Email: rifon@msu.edu, Tel: 517.355.3295 BRIEF SUMMARY You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by a team of researchers at Michigan State University. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the research study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, including why you might or might not want to participate, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to discuss and ask the researchers any questions you may have. The purpose of the study is to validate and pretest a survey questionnaire designed to measure people’s reasons for taking action against companies that engage in unethical business practices. To participate, you need to be at least 18 years old. Your participation in this study will take about 60 minutes. This will be an online interview that will take place on Zoom, a video conference platform. The interview will be audiotaped and transcribed. You will also need a desktop computer, tablet, or smartphone with internet connection. We would also like to remind you that: • The microphone should be turned on for the duration of the interview. It would be highly appreciated if you could keep your video on – the video will not be recorded. • You may want to download Zoom video conference app on your device before the interview: https://zoom.us/download#client_4meeting. It is also possible to participate without downloading the app through Zoom web client: https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/214629443-Getting-started-with-the-Zoom- web-client#h_01FGW753J4PVWY94DCEQQTAQ1Q. • Please prepare a quiet, comfortable space where you can be comfortable answering the interview questions. Your participation in this interview will help researchers create a measurement scale about people’s motivations (or goals) to engage in activist-like behavior against companies. The interview will be conducted by a researcher. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH You are being asked to participate in a research study that aims to pretest a survey questionnaire to measure people’s motivations to take action against companies that engage in unethical business practices. From this study, the researchers hope to develop a scale to measure consumers’ motivation to engage in activist-like behaviors against companies. We plan to interview about 5 people in this study. 211 WHAT YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DO You will be asked to participate in an online interview via Zoom, a video conference platform. To participate in the interview, you will need a computer, tablet, or smartphone with a reliable internet connection with Zoom installed. It would be best if you connect from a private space where you can talk freely. During the interview, you will be asked to simultaneously open an online questionnaire. As you answer the questionnaire, the interviewer will ask you to share your thoughts about the questions you read and reflect on your experience from the perspective of a survey respondent. In the questionnaire, you will be asked questions about instances in which you took action against companies and reflect on the behaviors and your motivations to engage in those behaviors. You will not be provided with research findings, but, if published, the research findings might be available to you and the general public. To register for this interview, you will need to fill out this short registration survey and schedule an interview time. POTENTIAL BENEFITS You will not directly benefit from your participation in this study. However, your participation in this study may contribute to understanding what motivates consumers to engage in activist-like behaviors. POTENTIAL RISKS Your participation in this study is not expected to cause you any risks greater than those encountered in everyday life. There are no anticipated physical, psychological, or financial risks associated with participation. There is a risk of loss of confidentiality if someone other than the investigators obtains your information or your identity. Still, precautions will be taken to prevent this from happening. The confidentiality of your interview will be maintained as required by applicable law and to the degree permitted by the technology used. Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY The interview will happen in a password-protected virtual room on Zoom. Your identity, participation, and any information you provide that could identify you or others will remain confidential. This information will not be shared with anyone outside the research group and will only be used for research purposes. Only the researchers and IRB at Michigan State University will have access to the interview audio and transcript. The interview will be audio-recorded for later data analysis. The audio file will be stored in a secured folder and deleted after the results are analyzed. The interview transcript will be kept for at least 3 years after the project closes. Any identifiable information will be redacted/removed from the interview transcript. For example, if you accidentally say your name, we will remove this from our transcripts. We might need to report participants’ age and gender in the research report. We will not identify you or use any 212 information that would make it possible for anyone to identify you in any presentation or written reports about this study. If it is okay with you, we might use direct quotes from you, but these would only be quoted as coming from a person of a certain label or title, such as “one woman of a certain age said.” YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW Participation is voluntary. Refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. • You have the right to say no. • You may change your mind at any time and withdraw. • You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY In exchange for your participation in our study, you will receive a payment of £GBP 20.00 (twenty British pounds) through Prolific. During the interview, you are expected to fully engage with the interview process, provide thoughtful answers, show genuine interest, be cordial toward the interviewer, and not engage in unrelated tasks or activities. In the case of frequent interruptions or low commitment, the researcher, at their own discretion, will end the interview, and participants will only receive the payment proportional to the elapsed time of the interview until termination. Payment is also dependent on the microphone being turned on during the interview. You may withdraw at any time without penalty. Participants who withdraw will receive payment proportional to the elapsed time of the interview. CONTACT INFORMATION If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, you can contact the researcher: Dr. Nora Rifon Professor, Michigan State University 404 Wilson Road, Room 316, East Lansing, MI 48824-1212 rifon@msu.edu Tel: 517.355.3295 If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 4000 Collins Rd, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT – WRITTEN AND VERBAL CONSENT Do you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study? [Yes, I consent /No, I do not consent] 213 You will indicate your voluntary agreement to participate and be audio-recorded by beginning this interview. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the information in this consent form prior to an interview meeting, please contact Dr. Nora Rifon. 214 APPENDIX D: COGNITIVE INTERVIEW GUIDE Introduction Hi, thank you so much for joining today. My name is Iago. I’m a student at Michigan State University. I’m interviewing different people to validate a survey questionnaire that researchers are developing to understand what motivates people to act against companies as a form of protest. If that is okay with you, I would like to review our consent form and address any questions you may have before we begin. I will start the audio recording to make sure I capture your consent. Ok? IWER INSTRUCTIONS: Start audio recording. Make sure the caption feature is on and working. Read consent form. Only proceed if R agrees to proceed. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this online interview. So let me give you an overview of what we will do. First, we will work on a warm-up task. Next, you will open the online questionnaire and answer the questions there. As you answer the questions in the questionnaire, I will pause you along the way to ask you some additional questions. Last, I will ask you about your overall experience with the questionnaire and the questions in it. Ok? Warm-up Task In this warm-up task, I will ask you simple, straightforward questions. What I would like you to do, as much as you can, is to say out loud what you are thinking of when answering a question. So let me give you an example; if the question is, “how many glasses of water did I drink yesterday,” I could say, “yesterday, I had one glass of water when I woke and another in the morning, then one in the afternoon, so in total, I had 3 glasses of water. I also drank coffee and soda, but I am not sure if that counts, so I will stick with 3.” Let’s try this with you. Think of your home. How many windows does it have? Could you please describe to me your thinking on how you came up with your answer? Think of the weather today. How is the weather? How does the weather today make you feel? Could you please describe to me your thinking on how you came up with your answer? Questionnaire Assessment IWER INSTRUCTIONS: Send questionnaire link through the chat function. Make sure R has successfully opened the questionnaire. Now, I would like you to start working your way through this questionnaire using the same process of thinking out loud your answers. Because I cannot see your screen, I will need 215 your help to follow along, so I will need you to read the questionnaire out loud for me as you move along. Do you have any questions? IWER INSTRUCTIONS: At the end of each battery of questions representing the same dimension, ask the following questions: PROBES: 1. Thinking back about this set of questions, was there any that stood out to you as being especially difficult to answer? 2. Was there any question to which you feel that people, in general, will have difficulties in providing accurate answers? 3. In your opinion, what is the common theme that binds this set of statements together? 4. Using your own words, how would you rephrase these statements to ask the same thing to a friend? CLARIFICATIONS [As needed]: 1. Comprehension and Interpretation: When I say [SURVEY ITEM WORD], what does come to your mind? 2. Judgment and Estimation: Could you please walk me through your thought process when answering this question? Closing Questions How was your overall experience with the questionnaire? Would you have any suggestions to improve it? IWER INSTRUCTIONS: Thank the participant and stop recording. 216 APPENDIX E: STUDY 2 ONLINE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232