It’s become common for companies to show off their social responsibility. Google highlights its solar-powered data centers, Apple talks about using recycled materials, and Walmart mentions its support for local communities.
But new research from Berkeley Haas shows that these positive messages can backfire. The study finds that when companies promote their good deeds, it can trigger negative memories in consumers, reducing support for policies that help businesses, especially in a crisis.
Overcoming doubts
Even if companies frame their social responsibility in a positive way, consumers with existing doubts about big business tend to recall negative experiences instead. “The messaging can have the opposite effect,” the researchers explain. “People are reminded of corporate scandals or failures, rather than the intended positive message.”
The study builds on new insights into how people think. Traditional economic models assume that people are rational actors, weighing all available information when making decisions. But this research draws on a more modern understanding: people have limited memory, and specific cues influence what they recall.
Advertising often works this way. The old Snickers slogan, “Hungry? Why wait?” prompts people to think about hunger, encouraging them to buy the candy without weighing other options like nutrition or saving money.
In this study, nearly 7,000 participants were surveyed during May 2020, when the pandemic was causing economic chaos and the government was considering corporate bailouts. Participants watched one of four videos: a neutral control video, one that painted companies as bad citizens (polluting or overpaying executives), one that showed them as good citizens, and one that focused on how bailouts help stabilize the economy.
Negative feelings
The findings were clear. Even when companies were framed positively, most people held negative views about big business—a sentiment the researchers call “big business discontent.” This discontent translated into lower support for corporate bailouts. Surprisingly, participants who watched a video highlighting companies’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) efforts expressed even less support for bailouts than those who saw the neutral video.
“When we got people thinking about corporate social responsibility, even in a positive light, their pre-existing negativity caused the message to backfire,” the researchers say. “People were more likely to recall negative events like scandals or environmental disasters.”
The effect was strongest among participants who were asked about companies’ ESG efforts before being asked about bailouts. Younger people and liberals, who tended to have the most negative views of big business, were the least supportive of bailouts.
In contrast, participants who watched a video focusing on how bailouts promote economic stability were more supportive of the policy. What people were cued to think about—whether it was corporate responsibility or economic health—strongly shaped their preferences.
The study’s findings go beyond corporate messaging. In any realm, when trying to change minds or win support, positive information can backfire if it relates to an issue people already view negatively. “If people already hold negative views on a topic,” the researchers conclude, “focusing on it might do more harm than good. A better strategy might be to shift attention to a different, more neutral area to win support.”
