--- - |2 Abstract Previous research has found that consumers ascribe mental states to for‐profit companies that enable them to elicit anger more easily than sympathy. The current study applies these findings to demonstrate how this evaluative asymmetry in consumer perceptions favor different strategies for individuals and companies managing conflicts and crises. First, it is shown that the mental states consumers ascribe to for‐profit companies enable them to elicit anger and admiration more easily than sympathy. Second, due to their ability to elicit anger more easily than sympathy, it is found that in conflicts between for‐profit companies and individuals, companies are evaluated more favorably when they focus attention on which side perpetrated the most harm, while individuals are evaluated more favorably when they focus on which side was most victimized. Third, due to their ability to elicit admiration more easily than sympathy, it is found that for‐profit companies derive greater benefits than individuals do from proactively taking responsibility to resolve crises rather than deflecting responsibility through claims of victimhood. Discussion focuses on marketing applications for companies managing conflicts and crises. - Psychology & Marketing, EarlyView.