Finding gold at the end of the rainbowflag? Claim vagueness and presence of emotional imagery as factors to perceive rainbowwashing

Companies increasingly take a stance for the LGBTQIA* community. However, consumers often criticize the appropriation of this support for economic reasons, also called rainbowwashing. Building upon corporate hypocrisy and greenwashing research, we investigate under which circumstances participants perceive an ad as rainbowwashing in two experiments. In Study 1, we test the effects of claims (vague vs. concrete vs. no claim) and emotional imagery (imagery vs. no imagery). In Study 2, we replicate this design (comparing vague vs. concrete claims and imagery vs. no imagery). Results from Study 1 show that reading a vague claim elicited the highest perceptions of rainbowwashing compared to reading no or a concrete claim. Images did not show a main effect. In Study 2, claim vagueness had no direct effect, whereas imagery had a direct impact on perceived rainbowwashing. In both studies, involvement with LGBTQIA* issues was a significant moderator for the effect of imagery, so that highly involved individuals perceived less rainbowwashing when emotional and imagery was included. We discuss these findings in light of personal characteristics for the perception of rainbowwashing and draw conclusions for individual factors for the broader field of corporate hypocrisy. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2022.2053393 .

Automated summary

This study investigates the perception of rainbowwashing in advertisements. Study 1 found that reading a vague claim elicited the highest perceptions of rainbowwashing, while images did not show a main effect. In Study 2, claim vagueness had no direct effect, whereas imagery had a direct impact on perceived rainbowwashing. Highly involved individuals in LGBTQIA* issues perceived less rainbowwashing when emotional and imagery was included.