We investigate the effect of individuals’ thinking style on their evaluation of a company that engages in a corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiative with varying degrees of a company-cause fit. A substantial body of research suggests that consumers’ evaluation of CSR depend on the degree of a fit between a company and a social cause that the company aims to support. Although a high fit CSR initiative has been associated with more favorable consumer evaluation than a low fit CSR initiative, we suggest that this is true only for analytic thinkers. In two experimental studies, we show that analytic thinkers tend to react more sensitively to the degree of CSR fit than do holistic thinkers. Specifically, analytic thinkers perceive a high fit CSR to be more public serving than a low fit CSR, leading to more favorable reactions to it. Holistic thinkers tend to believe both high and low fit CSR initiatives to be equally public serving, leading to favorable reactions to both. In addition, compared to analytic thinkers, holistic thinkers tend to perceive a low fit CSR initiative to be more public serving and subsequently exhibit more positive reactions to it. Our work contributes to the CSR literature by adding individuals’ thinking styles as a determinant of their sensitivity to the degree of a company-cause fit. We also demonstrate the perception of public serving CSR motive is the underlying process of the hypothesized effect. Thus, our findings shed new light on the role of fit, showing that depending on thinking style, having a high fit initiative may not be as critical as previously thought. Instead, a low fit CSR initiative can generate consumers’ positive reactions.