Graduate School of Communication
“It’s for a good cause!”
A study on the effects of cause-related marketing on consumers’ attitudes and
intentions toward brands and causes
Master’s Thesis
Master’s Program Communication Science Name: Fairouz Kasri
Student number: 11813210 Supervisor: mw. dr. M.L. Fransen
Date of completion: Friday, 28 June 2019 Word count: 7867
Abstract
Consumers are increasingly oriented toward socially responsibility. It is expected that employing socially oriented marketing activities subsequently yield positive consumer responses toward brands however, research is largely inconclusive regarding consumer receptiveness to these endeavors, such as cause-related marketing. This study investigates in more detail the relationship between cause-related marketing and consumer responses by, specifically, looking at the effect of message objective on attitudes and intentions toward the sponsoring brand and the partnering cause.
Furthermore, it considers message source and socially responsible consumer behavior and
explores whether a social orientation–be it through a source or consumer characteristic–elaborates on this relationship. An experimental study (N = 244) was conducted to explore these relationships using a fictitious cause-related marketing campaign between Kleenex (brand) and Habitat for
Humanity (cause). The results of the study revealed that consumer responses toward the brand and the cause are not significantly affected by either message objective or message source. However, positive effects were found for attitudes and intentions toward the cause for consumers who exhibit a higher degree of socially responsible consumer behavior. Discussion includes implications of the study’s findings as well as avenues for future research.
Keywords: Cause-related marketing, cause-brand alliances, message characteristics,
“It’s for a good cause!”: A study on the effects of cause-related marketing on consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward brands and causes
In recent years, corporate social responsibility (CSR), or “prosocial corporate endeavors” (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001, p.226); has become increasingly relevant to marketeers. The majority of consumers believes brands should engage in socially responsible activities and would choose to purchase products by (more) socially responsible brands over irresponsible brands (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006; Gupta & Pirsch, 2006). Thus, in addition to considering the positive effects of engaging in socially responsible activities when setting their marketing strategy, brands must also consider the negative consequences of failing to do so. Existing literature indicates that employing CSR and social sponsorships provides positive outcomes for brands such as measurable increases in revenue and favorable affective and behavioral responses from consumers (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006).
Brands can engage in CSR by partnering with social causes. Such partnerships are referred to as cause-brand alliances, which are often realized through cause-related marketing (CRM) (Lafferty & Goldsmith, 2005). Essentially, CRM integrates the marketing objectives of a brand with those of a cause (Hajjat, 2003). CRM is a complex endeavor that must satisfy a variety of objectives for all parties involved. Sponsoring brands may benefit from the alliance by achieving positive consumer responses, both affective (i.e., attitudes) and behavioral (i.e., purchase intentions). Conversely, partnering causes may benefit through the attention and financial support the alliance generates (Lafferty & Goldsmith, 2005). However, the effectiveness of CRM relies on consumer receptiveness, and previous scholarship is inconclusive concerning the effects of CRM on consumer responses.
According to Nan and Heo (2007), an advertisement with a CRM message largely incites more positive consumer responses than an advertisement without a CRM message. However, the qualifications upon which positive consumer responses may be contingent are vast, as discussed further in the next section. Research that explores the effect of CRM on consumer responses is therefore needed. The current study investigates the relationship between message objectives and attitudes and intentions. Given the role of social responsibility in the consumer decision-making
process, it is important to understand how advertising can be used to enable consumers’
engagement in social causes. Moreover, research to date has principally focused on the effects of CRM in relation to brands rather than causes. This study contributes to existing research by delving into the potential effects of CRM on consumer responses in relation to both brands and causes. It thereby aims to provide a better understanding of consumer receptiveness to persuasive
communication.
Within this study, message objective is defined as the motivation behind the campaign as communicated in the advertisement. Research finds that when consumers perceive marketing activities as motivated by social interests (i.e., advocacy), they are evaluated more positively than when perceived as commercially motivated (i.e., product promotion) (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006). Within the context of CRM campaigns, the extent to which a brand message is perceived as advocacy over product promotion may differentiate consumer responses. As such the following research question is proposed: To what extent do different message objectives (advocacy vs. product promotion), when applied to a CRM campaign, affect consumer responses toward (i) a brand and (ii) a cause?
Message source and socially responsible consumer behavior (SRCB) are two potential moderators introduced in the study to elaborate on the relationship between message objective and attitudes and intentions. Research indicates that message source influences consumer responses such that social firms (i.e., causes) are more positively evaluated than commercial firms (i.e., brands) (Simmons & Becker-Olson, 2006). This effect on attitudes and intentions may also positively interact with and enhance the impact of message objective on consumer responses. Conversely, SRCB influences consumer responses originating from the consumer. Because consumers reward brands that reflect their personal values (Bigné-Alcañiz, Currás-Pérez, Ruiz-Mafé, & Sanz-Blas, 2010), it is important to clarify whether this positively impacts consumer responses toward CRM.
Theoretical framework
Cause-related marketing is defined as “the process of formulating and implementing marketing activities that are characterized by an offer from the firm to contribute a specified
amount to a designated cause when customers engage in revenue-providing exchanges that satisfy organizational and individual objectives” (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988, p.60). While CRM is commercially driven, it is unique in that it enables brands to satisfy consumers’ increasing need for social impact by generating awareness about, and financial support for, the cause it partners with, while simultaneously producing revenue and positive consumer responses (Gupta & Pirsch, 2006). CRM has become a common practice (Sheikh & Beise-Zee, 2011). However, despite the ubiquity and approval of CRM by marketeers and consumers alike, research in the field is inconclusive regarding the effects of CRM on consumer responses (Hajjat, 2003).
Research finds that CRM campaigns may yield positive consumer responses for brand loyalty (Van den Brink, Odekerken-Schröder, & Pauwels, 2006), perceptions toward advertisers (Ross, Patterson, & Stutts, 1992), and attitudes and purchase intentions (e.g., Chang, 2008; Galan-Ladero, Galera-Casquet, & Wymer, 2013; Henderson & Arora, 2010; Kim, Kim, & Han, 2005; Lafferty, Goldsmith, & Hult, 2004; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004). Within that stream, CRM research has been concerned with optimizing campaign effects for brand features (e.g.,product categories; Strahilevitz & Myers, 1998), cause characteristics (e.g., cause familiarity; Lafferty & Goldsmith, 2005), and, more specifically on the basis of congruence.
Congruence is the extent to which consumers perceive campaign-related elements to be compatible or ‘fit’ (Trimble & Rifon, 2006). For example, a partnership between two firms may be considered compatible on the basis of their core activities, social image or
organizational goals (i.e., brand-cause fit). An example is that of shoe company TOMS; for every pair of shoes purchased, the company provides a child in need with a pair of shoes (TOMS, n.d.). Research largely finds that high congruence (i.e., a greater degree of compatibility) increases positive consumer responses, such as purchase intentions (Goldsmith & Yimin, 2014). However, even when CRM is shown to positively influence consumer responses, the outcomes appear to be heavily influenced by factors related to its
implementation (Koschate-Fisher, Stefan, & Hoyer, 2012)–i.e., the way in which campaign-related elements are operationalized in empirical studies.
To illustrate, a study on cause-involvement, or; the degree to which consumers perceive a cause as congruent with their personal values(Grau & Folse, 2007), and donation size, found that higher involvement and bigger donation size resulted in more positive attitudes and intentions–and the opposite for lower involvement and smaller
donation size (Hajjat, 2003). By contrast, a study on types of congruence willingness to pay, found effects only for brand-cause fit and high donation amounts (Koschate-Fisher et al., 2012). There is thus limited empirical support for effects of CRM on consumer responses, and, where effects are found, they appear to be conditional and varying.
The aforementioned examples clearly show that the understanding of the effectiveness of CRM is limited, which raises the question of how firms can best implement it in order to produce desired consumer responses. Scholars have suggested that such inconclusive, or sometimes contrary, findings may be impacted by consumer perceptions regarding the campaign (Moosmayer & Fuljahn, 2013). This observation provides an interesting avenue for further research into CRM, namely what may underlie consumer responses to CRM campaigns, if not campaign-related elements such as the compatibility between the firms. Attribution theory (Kelley, 1973, as cited in Rifon, Choi, Trimble, & Li, 2004) provides a possible explanation of how consumer perceptions are formed and how they may subsequently influence consumer responses.
CRM, consumer attributions, and message objective
Cause-brand alliances are intended to benefit both the sponsoring brand and partnering cause financially, at least in part. In effect, the inherent duality of CRM may confound consumers’ ability to distinguish between the motives that are simultaneously at play. It is therefore important to explain the relationship between consumer attributions and consumer responses within the field of CRM research, and, more specifically; the manner in which motivational cues are communicated as part of a CRM campaign. Attribution theory explains how the motives consumers attribute to a campaign inform later consumer behavior (Kelley, 1973, as cited in Rifon et al., 2004). Individuals are said to attribute two primary motives to firms’ promotional activities, namely motives that center
on external benefits (i.e., public-serving) and internal benefits (i.e., profit-serving) (Forehand & Grier, 2003). For the purpose of this research, external benefits are considered in terms of advocacy and internal benefits in terms of product promotion.
Consumers form perceptions on the basis of what information is salient at the time of exposure to campaign material (Rifon et al., 2004). The information consumers receive may produce one of two outcomes. In the absence of clear external motives for any given promotional activity, consumers likely ascribe internal motives to the activity (Forehand & Grier, 2003).
Conversely, research finds that, when such an external benefit is observed, consumers discount the possibility of an internal benefit (Rifon et al., 2004). Broadly, consumers evaluate firms more
positively when they attribute an advocacy motive to their promotional activities, and more negatively when they attribute a product promotion motive (Del Mar García-De los Salmones & Perez, 2017).
According to Forehand and Grier (2003) “processes of causal attribution are fundamental to many aspects of consumer cognitions and behaviors” (p.349), which includes how consumer
responses to marketing communication are shaped (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006). Thus, the presence or absence of certain motivational cues in a campaign is central to the formation of consumer attributions and, subsequently, consumer responses. Applied to CRM, the manner in which
information about the benefits of the cause-brand alliance is provided, may thus inform consumers’ evaluation of both. A recent study on sponsorship effects however, found no significant relationship between pretest consumer attitudes toward the sponsoring brand and posttest consumer
attributions (Rifon et al., 2004), implying that perhaps consumer attributions do not underlie consumer responses.
This may be partly due to the inherent duality of CRM campaigns. CRM campaigns generally emphasize the social impact, as they are primarily intended to generate awareness for a social issue. However, it is unclear to what extent consumers understand that the campaign
simultaneously serves a commercial purpose and, consequently, whether their responses are informed by the communication of motivational cues. Indeed, scholars caution that consumer attributions should not be considered a ‘fixed’ factor (Rifon et al., 2004). That is to say, the effect of
motivational cues in CRM-related communication on consumer responses warrants further
investigation, despite previous scholarship maintaining that socially driven campaigns are evaluated more positively than commercially driven campaigns (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006).
As such, the current study seeks to validate the predicted pattern and hypothesizes that: H1a – An advocacy message, in a CRM campaign, will result in (i) more positive attitudes and (ii) stronger purchase intentions toward the brand, compared to a product promotion message. Although it seems that no studies on the effect of message objective on consumer responses in regard to the cause exist, similar effects toward the cause are expected such that: H1b – An advocacy message, in a CRM campaign, will result in (i) more positive attitudes and (ii) stronger donation intentions toward the cause, compared to a product promotion message.
Message source and the effect of meaning transfer
In addition to the effect of message objective, message source is an important facet of CRM campaigns that may influence consumer responses. There are two firms involved in CRM
campaigns, who likely have respective channels through which they communicate with their
consumer base. From a practical standpoint, both firms may benefit from a better understanding of how to effectively roll out a campaign. Moreover, it is not wrong to assume that these effects might differ between them. Research finds that consumers generally perceive commercial firms more negatively than social firms on account of their orientation toward profit (Webb & Mohr, 1998). This results in differential effects for consumer responses toward brands participating in CRM compared to causes, where the former is perceived more positively than the latter (Simmons & Becker-Olson, 2006).
However, positive affect may be leveraged. To better understand this mechanism, one may look to the theory of meaning transfer (McCracken, 1986, as cited in Myers & Kwon, 2013). The theory of meaning transfer explains how value transference may influence consumer responses to cause-brand alliances. Meaning transfer occurs when individuals attribute value to an object on the basis of culturally relevant experiences, and when objects are experienced simultaneously, they may become associated (McCracken, 1986, as cited in Myers & Kwon, 2013). To illustrate, celebrity endorsements are effective because individuals transfer the value that they attribute to the featured
celebrity onto the endorsed product (McCracken, 1986, as cited in Myers & Kwon, 2013). Within the context of cause-brand alliances, meaning transfer theory suggests that individuals may transfer the value they ascribe to one party in the partnership onto the other party. For example, social firms may have such “widespread appeal” (Trimble & Rifon, 2006, p.30) that positive perceptions are transferred from the partnering cause onto the sponsoring brand. It is also possible that brands are more-well known, which might also benefit promotional activities.
Thus, research is needed to establish whether message source plays any role in consumer responses to a CRM campaign, which raises the following question: RQ1a – What is the effect of message source on attitudes and intentions toward (i) the brand and (ii) the cause? It is also plausible that message objective and message source, when taken together, enhance positive consumer responses. Namely: the positive effect of a socially driven motive on attitudes and intentions may be strengthened by promoting the campaign via a socially oriented source, who, accordingly, is more positively evaluated. As such, the current study additionally explores whether such an interaction exists through the following question: RQ1b – Does message source strengthen the expected main effect of advocacy on attitudes and intentions?
The role of the socially conscious consumer
This study must also consider the role of the socially conscious consumer in consumer responses to CRM. Research finds that socially conscious consumers now make up the majority of consumers, with over two-thirds expressing a willingness to buy or boycott a brand solely because of its position–or lack thereof–on a social or political issue (Edelman Earned Brand Global Report, 2018). A socially conscious consumer may thus be understood as “a consumer who takes into account the public consequences of his or her private consumption or who attempt to use his or her purchasing power to bring about social change” (Webster, 1975, as cited in Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001, p.47)–hereafter referred to as socially responsible consumer behavior (SRCB).
According to Sheikh and Beise-Zee (2011) the “perception of the negative effects of
corporations on various aspects of life has changed consumers’ consumption patterns” (p.27), and corporations are increasingly evaluated on the basis of their societal impact. Previous scholarship finds that consumers hold more favorable perceptions toward brands they perceive as socially
responsible in their business practices (Lafferty & Goldsmith, 2005). Research additionally demonstrates a link between socially responsible practices and positive consumer responses (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006). The question becomes: why, or when, do such effects occur?It is argued that consumers respond positively to CRM campaigns when they perceive the cause as personally relevant (Grau & Folse, 2007), and research further finds that such cause-involvement enhances the effectiveness of CRM efforts (Bigné-Alcañiz et al., 2010).
However, not every cause is equally relevant to every individual, from which it follows that the same individual could be considered both high and low involved with a cause across different campaigns. Causes may vary in the extent to which they are viewed by the public as correct or acceptable to support (Barone, Miyazaki, & Taylor, 2000). Individual differences in such perceptions consequently affect consumer responses, as research shows that
campaigns that center on relatively less controversial social issues are evaluated more favorably compared to those that center on relatively more controversial social issues (Barone et al., 2000). Additionally, variance in personal relevance may also result from proximity (Grau & Folse, 2007), where consumers are found to exhibit higher levels of involvement for issues more proximal to them, and immediacy (Ellen, Mohr, & Webb, 2000), where consumers are found to exhibit higher levels of involvement for issues which require immediate relief compared to ongoing issues.
Arguably, research can exert little to no control over such differences, nor can firms conceivably control them in practice. As such, CRM research may stand to gain from exploring involvement with social issues as a trait characteristic (i.e., a consistent measure) rather than a state characteristic (i.e., on a case by case basis). In fact, research finds that socially conscious consumption as a trait may be highly relevant to understanding consumer responses in more detail, as consumers are thought to form and enhance their personal identity through their consumption behavior (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). Accordingly, consumers seek out brands which they perceive as more meaningful and attractive (Park, Chung, Hall-Philips, & Anaza, 2016), as they tend to want to pursue consumption choices that enhance their self-concept (Sirgy, 1982).
Applying this behavior to the current study, when a brand is perceived as socially responsible, socially conscious consumers are likely to perceive the brand as resonating with their sense of self (Lichtenstein, Drumwright, & Braig, 2004). Consequently, with this relevance comes the likelihood that consumers will act encouragingly toward the brand (Lichtenstein et al., 2004, p.17). Similar effects might exist for the partnering cause on account of their inherent social orientation. However, as research is lacking concerning the effects of SRCB within the context of CRM, the current study seeks to investigate this further and proposes the following question: RQ2a – What is the effect of socially responsible consumption behavior on attitudes and intentions toward (i) the brand and (ii) the cause?
As it is plausible that message objective and SRCB together enhance positive consumer responses (i.e., the positive effect of an advocacy message on attitudes and intentions may be strengthened by consumers’ desire to personify social values through consumption), the current study therefore explores this possible interaction effect through the following question: RQ2b – Does socially responsible consumption behavior strengthen the expected main effect of advocacy on attitudes and intentions?
Methods Design and participants
This research employed a 2 (message objective: advocacy vs. product promotion) by 2 (message source: cause vs. brand) between-subjects design with socially responsible consumer behavior as a continuous variable. A total of 269 respondents participated in the experiment, of which 244 completed it. Respondents’ ages range from 18 to 64 (M = 28.02,
SD = 7.93). Most respondents resided in the Netherlands (n = 118). The majority of the
sample (n = 192) identified as female, and most have obtained a Bachelor’s degree (n = 107). Respondents’ demographics are presented in more detail in Appendix A.
Procedure
Data was collected over a ten-day period, and respondents were recruited via social media to participate in a study about consumer behavior. After consenting to participate in the study, respondents were asked a number of questions about their consumption behavior, before being randomly assigned to one of four conditions and shown a poster created to resemble a CRM campaign (see Appendix D). They were exposed to the posters for ten seconds; this was to ensure that respondents spent an equal amount of time reviewing the material at minimum. The posters included an introductory message, which highlighted the campaign’s goal to build healthy homes.
Next, attitudes and intentions toward the brand and the cause were measured, and participants were presented with two manipulation check questions asking them to indicate how they perceived the objective behind and source of the poster. Respondents were then asked a number of questions which served as control variables. These were items about their relative persuasion knowledge and CSR skepticism, the extent to which they were familiar with the brand and the cause depicted in the poster, and the extent to which they perceived the brand and the cause to be compatible. The survey closed with a section on demographics.
Selection of brand and cause. In order to identify which brand and cause to create a fictitious CRM partnership for, a pilot study was undertaken with 15 respondents. To
accurately investigate the effects of communication about a CRM campaign on an individual's attitudes and intentions toward a brand or cause, it is necessary to control for preexisting feelings and perceptions toward both firms (Simonin & Ruth, 1988). The purpose of the pilot study was therefore to identify firms that were rated most neutral, in order to mitigate the possible effects of such preconceptions on study results.
Respondents were given a list of ten brands from various industries and five causes covering a range of social initiatives. They were asked to evaluate each brand and cause on a seven-point semantic differential scale (i.e., negative/positive). The results revealed that Kleenex (M = 4.27, SD = 0.96) was evaluated as being relatively neutral with the lowest variation between responses, indicating a lower possibility of variability in affective perceptions of the brand among respondents participating in the final study. The results revealed a similar evaluation of Habitat for Humanity (M = 4.67, SD = 1.73). The findings of the pretest are presented in more detail in Appendix B.
Independent variables
Message objective. The message objective was presented on the poster in the form of a slogan and was manipulated as follows. The slogan intended to convey the advocacy message read: ‘You sneeze. We build. Kleenex supports sanitary living environments for all’. The slogan intended to convey the product promotion message read: ‘You buy1
. We build. Buy any Kleenex product to support sanitary living environments for all’.
In order to assess whether the manipulation of message objective was successful, a second pilot study was undertaken with 16 respondents. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of four conditions and shown a poster resembling a CRM campaign (see Appendix C). Respondents were asked to indicate what they perceived the message
objective to be on a seven-point bipolar scale (i.e., 1 = advocacy, 7 = product promotion). To
1
As previously mentioned, research finds that donation amount in a CRM campaign affects consumer responses (e.g., Koschate-Fisher et al., 2012; Hajjat, 2003). However, the effect of donation amount on attitudes and intentions falls outside of the scope of the current study. The stimulus materials were therefore created with a general reference to the commercial purpose of the campaign instead, namely that buying any Kleenex product produces revenue for the brand as well as a financial contribution to Habitat for Humanity.
test whether the manipulation was perceived as intended, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. The results revealed no statistically significant difference between the advocacy message and the product promotion message, F (1, 14) = 0.81, p = .385.
The manipulation of message objective was not successful, thus requiring the stimulus material to be altered2. Amendments included altering the text to visually emphasize the message objective further and changing the order in which the two texts appeared. The slogan for the advocacy message was integrated with the introductory message, so that the social motivation behind the campaign would become more salient, whereas the slogan for the product promotion message was moved to proceed the introductory message. Thus, creating a stronger contrast between the messages and emphasizing the commercial motivation behind the campaign.
Message source (moderator). Message source was manipulated through the placement and size of the firm’s logo on the poster. If the message source was the brand, the Kleenex logo was presented centrally. If the message source was the cause, the Habitat for Humanity logo was presented centrally. The partnering firm’s logo was placed at the bottom of the poster. Since both parties have to be represented in communications about the cause-brand alliance, which may cause confusion, the source’s logo was bigger in size than the partner’s logo in all conditions. In order to assess whether the manipulation of message source was successful, as part of the second pilot study, respondents were also asked to indicate who they perceived the message source was on a seven-point bipolar scale (i.e., 1 = the brand, 7 = the cause).
To test whether the manipulations were perceived as intended, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. The results revealed no statistically significant difference between message source, F (1, 14) = 0.09, p = .774. The manipulation of message source was thus not
successful, and the stimulus materials were subsequently amended3. To make the
2
Comparisons of the stimulus materials per condition before and after amendments are included in Appendix E.
3
Comparisons of the stimulus materials per condition before and after amendments are included in Appendix E.
distinction between the message source and partnering firm more pronounced, an opening sentence was added to the poster, from the perspective of the source. The distinction between message source was further emphasized by making an explicit reference to the partnership at the bottom of the poster.
SRCB (moderator). Little is known about socially responsible consumption behavior (Balderjahn, Peyer, & Paulssen, 2013), and no comprehensive measure exists in current scholarship. Thus, in order to measure respondents’ SRCB, a nine-item battery was constructed, comprised of items from studies by Balderjahn et al. (2013), Cho and Kesser (2011), Matthes and Wonneberg (2014), Shah et al. (2007), and Walker and Kent (2013), e.g., ‘I will not buy from a brand whose values I do not share’. The items were selected because together they make up a broad range of consumption behaviors, and thereby appropriately reflect ways in which such behavior may manifest, resulting in an inclusive approach to consumer reasoning. Respondents were asked to evaluate their consumption behavior by rating their level of agreement with each statement on a seven-point Likert scale that ranges from (1) ‘Strongly disagree’ to (7) ‘Strongly agree’.
The nine items were analyzed using a principal factor analysis with Oblimin rotation. The analysis revealed a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of .89, and was statistically significant (p < .001). The analysis yielded one factor with an Eigenvalue greater than one, which explained 51.9% of the variance. The SRCB measure used in this study is thus comprised of eight items (see Appendix F), and the computed scale was found to be reliable (α = .89). A mean score was computed, where a higher score reflects a relatively higher propensity for SRCB (M = 4.92, SD = 1.08).
Dependent variables
Attitudes. Respondents’ attitudes were measured using a five item, seven-point semantic differential scale (e.g., negative/positive, unappealing/appealing) adapted from studies by Boerman, van Reijmersdal, and Neijens (2012), and Spears and Singh (2004). Respondents were asked to indicate which point on the scale best represented their attitude toward the brand (α = .94) and the cause (α = .97). Mean scores were computed, where a
higher score reflects a more positive attitude toward Kleenex (M = 5.33, SD = 1.08) and Habitat for Humanity (M = 5.76, SD = 1.06) respectively.
Intentions. Respondents’ intentions were measured using a four item, seven-point semantic differential scale (e.g., very unlikely/very likely, very improbable/very probable) from a study by Chang and Thorson (2004). Respondents were asked to indicate which point on the scale best represented their intentions to make a brand purchase (α = .96) and donate to the cause (α = .97). Mean scores were computed, where a higher score reflects a stronger intention to purchase any Kleenex product(s) (M = 4.92, SD = 1.53) and make a donation to Habitat for Humanity (M = 4.54, SD = 1.37), respectively.
Control variables
Persuasion knowledge. This study controls for relative persuasion knowledge since this might diminish consumer responses toward promotional activities (Boerman et al., 2012). Consequently, they might ascribe more negative attitudes and intentions toward the brand and the cause irrespective of the effectiveness of the manipulations. In order to measure respondents’ persuasion knowledge, a seven-item battery was constructed, comprised of items from studies conducted by Bearden, Hardesty, and Rose (2001), and Waiguny, Nelson, and Terlutter (2013), e.g., ‘I know advertising is intended to persuade’. The items were selected because they capture respondents’ self-perception of their ability to understand advertising (Bearden et al., 2001). The items thereby provide insight into the overall influence of consumers’ general persuasion knowledge.
Respondents were asked to evaluate their persuasion knowledge by rating their level of agreement with each item on a seven-point Likert scale that ranges from (1) ‘Strongly disagree’ to (7) ‘Strongly agree’. The items were analyzed using a principal factor analysis with Oblimin rotation. The analysis revealed a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of .80, and was statistically significant (p < .001). The analysis yielded two factors with an Eigenvalue greater than one, explaining 45.9% and 16.3% of the variance. This study uses the items on the higher loading factor. One item; ‘Advertisements are intended to help me learn about (a) product(s)’, failed to load on any factor and was consequently excluded from further
analysis. The persuasion knowledge measure used in this study is thus comprised of four items (see Appendix F), and the computed scale was found to be reliable (α = .82). A mean score was computed, where a higher score reflects a relatively higher degree of persuasion knowledge (M = 5.27, SD = 0.98).
CSR skepticism. This study controls for relative skepticism toward CSR activities since this might lower consumers’ acceptance of advertising (Kim & Lee, 2009). In order to measure respondents’ skepticism toward CSR, a four-item battery was constructed, comprised of selected items from a study by Rim and Kim (2016), e.g., ‘Brands pretend to care more about social issues than they really do’. The original battery is comprised of over 90 items that reflect the dimensions that make up overall skepticism toward CSR (Rim & Kim, 2016). These four items4 represent one dimension each, namely cynicism toward socially responsible business practices, distrust of communication about related activities, distrust of outcomes, and perceived motivation of CSR activities (Rim & Kim, 2016). Items from each dimension were selected so that the condensed battery retains the essence of the original measure.
Respondents were asked to evaluate their skepticism toward CSR activities by rating their level of agreement with each statement on a seven-point Likert scale that ranges from (1) ‘Strongly disagree’ to (7) ‘Strongly agree’. The items were analyzed using a principal factor analysis with Oblimin rotation. The analysis showed a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of .78, and was statistically significant (p < .001). The analysis yielded one factor with an Eigenvalue greater than one, which explained 63.1% of the variance. The CSR skepticism measure used in this study is thus comprised of four items (see Appendix F), and the resulting scale was found to be reliable (α = .80). A mean score was computed, where a higher score reflects a relatively higher degree of CSR skepticism (M = 6.11, SD = 0.80).
Familiarity. This study controls for brand and cause familiarity since a higher degree of familiarity might positively affect consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward either firm
4
The original study that these items were taken from conducted exploratory research into predictors of consumer responses. While the authors of the original study found them not to fit their model, the phrasing of the items fit the scope of the current research.
(Lafferty & Goldsmith, 2005). Respondents’ familiarity with Kleenex and Habitat for Humanity was measured using one item on a seven-point semantic differential scale (i.e., very
unfamiliar/very familiar). Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they were familiar with the brand and the cause prior to participating in this study. A mean score was computed, where a higher score reflects a higher degree of familiarity with Kleenex (M = 5.53, SD = 1.73) and Habitat for Humanity (M = 3.23, SD = 2.19), respectively.
Brand-cause fit. This study controls for brand-cause fit since a higher degree of perceived congruence might positively affect consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward either firm (Gupta & Pirsch, 2006; Samu & Wymer, 2009). Respondents’ perceptions of the compatibility between Kleenex and Habitat for Humanity was measured using one item on a seven-point semantic differential scale (i.e., very incompatible/very compatible). A mean score was computed, where a higher score reflects a higher degree of perceived brand-cause fit between Kleenex and Habitat for Humanity (M = 4.11, SD = 1.23) respectively. Randomization checks
Gender. To ensure that respondents were randomly assigned to the conditions, a cross-tabulation was performed with the experimental conditions, namely (1) advocacy x brand, (2) advocacy x cause, (3) product promotion x brand, and (4) product promotion x cause, and gender. The results revealed that eight cells (50%) had an expected count lower than five. A Fisher’s Exact test was therefore conducted as an alternative, and results revealed no statistically significant difference between the conditions on gender (p = .854, two-tailed). Thus, it can be assumed that randomization on this variable was successful.
Age. To ensure that respondents were randomly assigned to the conditions, a one-way ANOVA was conducted with the four conditions as the independent variable and age as the dependent variable. The results revealed no statistically significant difference between the conditions, F (3, 240) = 1.86, p = .138. Thus, it can be assumed that randomization on this variable was successful.
Level of education. To ensure that respondents were randomly assigned to the conditions, a one-way ANOVA was conducted with the four conditions as the independent
variable and level of education as the dependent variable, F (3, 240) = 1.23, p = .299. Thus, it can be assumed that randomization on this variable was successful.
Persuasion knowledge. To ensure that respondents were randomly assigned to the conditions, a one-way ANOVA was conducted with the four conditions as the independent variable and persuasion knowledge as the dependent variable. The results revealed no statistically significant difference between the conditions, F (3, 240) = 0.64, p = .589. Thus, it can be assumed that randomization on this variable was successful.
CSR skepticism. To ensure that respondents were randomly assigned to the conditions, a one-way ANOVA was conducted with the four conditions as the independent variable and CSR skepticism as the dependent variable. The results revealed no statistically significant difference between the conditions, F (3, 240) = 0.29, p = .833. Thus, it can be assumed that randomization on this variable was successful.
Brand familiarity. To ensure that respondents were randomly assigned to the conditions, a one-way ANOVA was conducted with the four conditions as the independent variable and persuasion knowledge as the dependent variable. The results revealed no statistically significant difference between the conditions, F (3, 240) = 2.29, p = .079. Thus, it can be assumed that randomization on this variable was successful.
Cause familiarity. To ensure that respondents were randomly assigned to the conditions, a one-way ANOVA was conducted with the four conditions as the independent variable and persuasion knowledge as the dependent variable. The results revealed no statistically significant difference between the conditions, F (3, 240) = 1.07, p = .363. Thus, it can be assumed that randomization on this variable was successful.
Brand-cause fit. To ensure that respondents were randomly assigned to the conditions, a one-way ANOVA was conducted with the four conditions as the independent variable and persuasion knowledge as the dependent variable. The results revealed no statistically significant difference between the conditions, F (3, 240) = 0.41, p = .748. Thus, it can be assumed that randomization on this variable was successful.
Covariates
Covariates may be used to account for preexisting differences among the sample. Therefore, including measures that correct for such influences may increase the power of an analysis and subsequently yield more accurate results (Meyvis & Van Osselaer, 2017). Although randomization for the control variables was successful for all conditions, it remains important to establish whether they are systematically related to consumer responses to the brand and the cause. As can be seen in Table 1, each control variable is significantly correlated with at least one dependent variable. The variables are therefore included in all subsequent analyses.
Table 1
Correlation between control variables and attitudes and intentions
Variables Brand attitudes Purchase intentions Cause attitudes Donation intentions Persuasion knowledge .10 .02 .21** -.07 CSR skepticism Brand familiarity Cause familiarity Brand-cause fit -.14* .18** .12 .23** -.13* .15* .14* .31** -.03 .25** .28** .13* -.11 -.09 .21** .24** ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Analyses and results Manipulation checks
Respondents were asked to indicate what they perceived the message objective to be on a seven-point bipolar scale (i.e., 1 = socially driven, 7 = commercially driven). To test whether the message objectives were perceived as intended, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. The results revealed no statistically significant difference between the advocacy message and the product promotion message, F (1, 242) = 0.47, p = .495. Although the manipulation check was not successful, message objective is still included as a factor for analysis for the purpose of this study.
Respondents were also asked to indicate who they perceived the message source was on a seven-point bipolar scale (i.e., 1 = the brand, 7 = the cause). To test whether the message source was identified as intended, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. The results revealed a statistically significant difference between message source (Mbrand = 2.47, SD = 1.62; Mcause = 3.93, SD = 2.10), F (1, 242) = 38.69, p < .001. The manipulation of message source was successful.
Analyses
The effect of message objective on consumer responses toward (i) the brand (i.e., brand attitudes, purchase intentions) and (ii) the cause (i.e., cause attitudes and donation intentions) was analyzed using the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013). Model 2 was applied, whereby message source and SRCB were included as moderators5. Additionally, persuasion knowledge, CSR skepticism, brand and cause familiarity, and brand-cause fit were included as covariates6. The regression models were statistically significant7 and can thus be used to predict the effects of the aforementioned variables on consumer responses, although the strength of each prediction is moderate. The findings are presented in more detail in Appendix G.
Hypothesis testing
It was hypothesized that an advocacy message, in a CRM campaign, will result in (i) more positive attitudes and (ii) stronger purchase intentions toward the brand, compared to a product promotion message (H1a). The results revealed no significant main effect of
message objective on brand attitudes, b = 0.52, t = 0.79, p = .443, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.82], or on purchase intentions, b = 0.13, t = 0.16, p = .876, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.74]. This means that
5 An illustration of Model 2 with this study’s variables is included in Appendix H. 6
Regression models without the listed covariates were not found to be statistically significant, affirming the relevance of these covariates in studying the effect of message and consumer characteristics on consumer responses.
7Model summaries – Brand attitudes: F (10,233) = 3.52, p < .001, R2 =.13; Purchase intentions: F (10,233) = 4.00, p < .001, R2 =.15; Cause attitudes: F (10,233) = 6.14, p < .001, R2 =.21, and Donation intentions: F (10,233) = 7.43, p < .001, R
2
consumers did not differ significantly in their responses toward the brand on the basis of the message objective included in the campaign; H1a was rejected.
Additionally, a significant effect was found for brand-cause fit on brand attitudes, b = 0.21, t = 3.73, p < .001, 95% CI [0.10, 0.32]. Moreover, a significant effect was found for brand-cause fit on purchase intentions, b = 0.33, t = 4.82, p < .001, 95% CI [0.19, 0.46]. However, results revealed no significant effects of persuasion knowledge, b = 0.16, t = 1.75,
p = .081, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.35], CSR skepticism, b = -0.14, t = -1.93, p = .054, 95% CI [-0.28,
0.00], brand familiarity, b = 0.08, t = 1.92, p = .057, 95% CI [-0.00, 0.17], and cause familiarity, b = 0.02, t = 0.61, p = .544, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.08], on brand attitudes. Likewise, results revealed no significant effects of persuasion knowledge, b = 0.19, t = 2.10, p = .037, 95% CI [0.01, 0.36], CSR skepticism, b = -0.13, t = -1.47, p = .143, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.05], brand familiarity, b = 0.09, t = 1.61, p = .109, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.19], and cause familiarity, b = 0.04, t = 1.04, p = .299, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.12], on purchase intentions.
Next, it was hypothesized that an advocacy message, in a CRM campaign, will result in (i) more positive attitudes and (ii) stronger donation intentions toward the cause,
compared to a product promotion message (H1b). The results revealed no significant main effect of message objective on cause attitudes, b = 0.54, t = 0.87, p = .384, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.76], or donation intentions, b = 0.46, t = 0.59, p = .558, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.01]. This means that consumers did not differ significantly in their responses toward the cause on the basis of the message objective included in the campaign; H1b was rejected.
Additionally, a significant effect was found for persuasion knowledge, b = 0.19, t = 2.10, p = .037, 95% CI [0.01, 0.36], brand familiarity, b = 0.09, t = 2.35, p = .020, 95% CI [0.02, 0.17], cause familiarity, b = 0.08, t = 2.54, p = .012, 95% CI [0.02, 0.14], and brand-cause fit, b = 0.11, t = 2.13, p = .034, 95% CI [0.08, 0.21], on brand-cause attitudes. Moreover, a significant effect was found for brand familiarity, b = -0.13, t = -2.47, p = .014, 95% CI [-0.23, -0.03], cause familiarity, b = 0.10, t = 2.62, p = .010, 95% CI [0.03, 0.18], and brand-cause fit, b = 0.23, t = 3.54, p <.001, 95% CI [0.10, 0.36], on donation intentions. However, the results revealed no significant effect of CSR skepticism on cause attitudes, b = 0.03, t =
0.48, p = .629, 95% CI [0.17, 0.10], and no significant effect of persuasion knowledge, b = -0.11, t = -0.90, p = .369, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.12], and CSR skepticism, b = -0.05, t = -0.59, p = .556, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.12], on donation intentions.
The effect of message source
The current study explored whether message source affects attitudes and intentions toward (i) the brand and (ii) the cause (RQ1a), and whether message source strengthens the expected main effect of advocacy on attitudes and intentions (RQ1b). The results revealed no significant main effect of message source, b = 0.05, t = -0.28, p = .781, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.82], nor a significant interaction between message objective and message source on brand attitudes, b = -0.07, t = -0.28, p = .782, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.46]. Furthermore, the results revealed no significant main effect of message source, b = 0.20, t = 0.87, p = .389, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.65], nor a significant interaction between message objective and message source on purchase intentions, b = -0.01, t = -0.03, p = .979, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.65]. Consumer
responses toward the brand are not significantly affected by message source.
Likewise, the results revealed no significant main effect of message source, b = -0.14, t = -0.79, p = .430, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.21], nor a significant interaction between message objective and message source on cause attitudes, b = 0.01, t = 0.05, p = .958, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.51. Furthermore, the results revealed no significant main effect of message source, b = -0.21, t = -0.95, p = .345, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.23], nor a significant interaction between
message objective and message source on donation intentions, b = 0.27, t = 0.85, p = .395, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.90]. Consumer responses toward the cause are not significantly affected by message source.
The role of the socially responsible consumer
Lastly, this study explored whether SRCB affects brand attitudes and intentions toward (i) the brand and (ii) the cause (RQ2a), and whether SRCB strengthens the expected main effect of advocacy on attitudes and intentions (RQ2b). A significant main effect of SRCB on cause attitudes was found, b = 0.28, t = 3.37, p < .001, 95% CI [0.12, 0.44], where cause attitudes increase for consumers who exhibit a higher degree of SRCB. Furthermore,
a significant main effect of SRCB on donation intentions was found, b = 0.48, t = 4.60, p < .001, 95% CI [0.28, 0.69], where donation intentions marginally increase for consumers who exhibit a higher degree of SRCB. However, the results revealed no significant interaction between message objective and SRCB on donation intentions, b = -0.11, t = -0.79, p = .468, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.19], or cause attitudes, b = -0.13, t = -0.87, p = .332, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.12], respectively.
The results revealed no significant main effect of SRCB, b = 0.14, t = 1.54, p = .126, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.31], nor a significant interaction between message objective and SRCB on brand attitudes, b = -0.14, t = -1.11, p = .266, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.11]. Furthermore, the results revealed no significant main effect of SRCB, b = 0.09, t = 0.78, p = .436, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.30], nor a significant interaction between message objective and SRCB on purchase intentions, b = -0.07, t = -0.41, p = .679, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.24]. Consumer responses toward the brand are not significantly affected by socially responsible consumption behavior.
Conclusion and Discussion
This study sought to investigate the relationship between message objective and attitudes and intentions toward brands and causes in a CRM partnership. In addition, this study explored two potential moderators to elaborate on this relationship, namely message source and SRCB. The findings show that there is no effect of message objective on
consumer responses toward the brand or the cause. However, the manipulation of message objective failed and while this study can therefore not validate the predicted pattern, it also does not provide evidence to discount it. Consumer responses have differed between socially driven (i.e., advocacy) and commercially driven (i.e., product promotion) motives, in favor of the expected effect (Myers & Kwon, 2013). Within the parameters of this study however, respondents perceived no such difference.
Further research is needed to better understand the boundary conditions of this message characteristic to develop more reliable manipulations. For example, future research may consider whether consumers are better able to differentiate between message
perceptions of commercial motivation might differ on the basis of an explicit donation amount, as evidence on the effect of donation amount on consumer responses is inconclusive (Koschate-Fisher et al., 2012; Hajjat, 2003).
Similar to the expected effect of message objective, a socially oriented source was expected to yield more positive consumer responses, though this effect did not occur. The findings show that there is no effect of message source on consumer responses toward the brand or the cause, nor does message source strengthen the expected effect of an
advocacy message on attitudes and intentions. This study also explored the effect of SRCB on consumer responses toward the brand and the cause. It was suggested that socially responsible consumers reward socially responsible firms (Lichtenstein et al., 2004), as consumers are thought to form and enhance their personal identity through consumption (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). However, this study only finds positive effects for attitudes and intentions toward the cause for consumers who exhibit a higher degree of SRCB. It is recommended that further research explores the relationship between SRCB and consumer responses so that any implications for brand managers become clearer.
While SRCB significantly affected consumer responses toward cause, the strength of the prediction was moderate. This may be because the average score of SRCB was around the midpoint of the scale, with a relatively low variation between responses (M = 4.92, SD = 1.08). Although this may mean that the sample is comprised of consumers for which SRCB is simply lower, the score may also be a result of the measure. The SRCB measure was specifically constructed for this study and it follows that a new measure requires further testing. This may result in the inclusion of items that better reflect SRCB, thereby improving the applicability of the measure.
Although the effect of SRCB was only significant for consumer responses toward the cause, the findings provide support for the notion that effects of CRM might differ between partnering firms, which future studies should continue to explore. Moreover, this study shows that CRM research is, in fact, significantly affected by factors related to its implementation, further highlighting that additional research is needed to overcome related constraints. This
notion is supported by findings from the control variables. Notably, brand familiarity produced a positive effect on attitudes toward the cause and a negative effect on donation intentions. While this study cannot speak to what caused these differential effects, it does provide an interesting avenue for future research. Namely, under which conditions consumer constructs might incite resistance as opposed to persuasive effects.
Additionally, this study confirms the effect of congruence on attitudes and intentions (e.g.; Gupta & Pirsch, 2006; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). Brand-cause fit produced a positive effect on all outcome variables and, as such, should be considered an important campaign-related element in CRM research going forward. Lastly, this study sought to isolate communication effects by using firms that were rated most neutral. Consumers’ preconceptions were controlled for by including brand and cause familiarity as covariates in the analyses. Results revealed that familiarity had a significant effect on consumer responses toward the cause, which implies that consumer responses are affected by such preconceptions. This study may have been improved upon by collecting pretest data on attitudes and intentions and consequently evaluating pretest-posttest changes in consumer responses. This may have more accurately reflected whether consumer responses were principally informed by the stimulus materials. It is therefore recommended that future research includes such an additional measure.
Theoretical and practical implications
This study contributes to CRM research in the following ways. First, it contributes to a small body of research which considers both brand and cause effects (e.g., Wymer & Samu, 2008). Moreover, this study’s findings are able to highlight the importance of considering such differential effects in CRM research. Additionally, this study introduces a new measure for SRCB, which was previously missing within the context of CRM. This new measure was able to explain over half of the variance in attitudes and intentions. As such, the SRCB measure has shown potential to become a reliable measure of consumer behavior and should continue to be tested in order to increase its validity.
An important managerial takeaway from this study pertains to the effect of SRCB on attitudes and intentions. Although positive effects were only found for consumer responses toward the cause, the implications of these findings are nevertheless relevant for brand managers. As previously mentioned, consumer receptiveness of CRM may be complicated by the extent to which the cause is perceived as relevant to the consumer. However, much of current CRM research considers such relevance on the basis of cause-involvement, where the receptiveness to the campaign is dependent upon the extent to which consumers resonate with a specific cause or the social issue that it represents. The findings of this study show that CRM campaigns can be constructed around a broader conceptualization of
values. By instead considering the relevance of the campaign to the consumer in terms of a shared goal of achieving social impact, marketing professionals may be less inhibited in their selection of partnering firms.
References
Becker-Olsen, K. C., Cudmore, A. B., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46-53.
Balderjahn, I., Peyer, M., & Paulssen, M. (2013). Consciousness for fair consumption: conceptualization, scale development and empirical validation. International Journal
of Consumer Studies, 37(5), 546-555.
Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of cause marketing on consumer choice: does one good turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 28(2), 248-262.
Bearden, W. O., Hardesty, D. M., & Rose, R.L. (2001). Consumer self-confidence:
Refinements in conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research,
28(1), 121-134.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers' relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76-88
Bigné-Alcañiz, E., Currás-Pérez, R., Ruiz-Mafé, C., & Sans-Blaz, S. (2010). Consumer behavioural intentions in cause-related marketing. The role of identification and social cause involvement. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 7(2), 127-143.
Boerman, S. C., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2012). Sponsorship discolsure: Effects of duration on persuasion knowledge and brand responses. Journal of
Communication, 62(6), 1047-1064.
Chang, C. T. (2008). To donate or not to donate? Product characteristics and framing effects of cause-related marketing on consumer purchase behavior. Psychology &
Marketing, 25(12), 1089-1110.
Chang, Y., & Thorson, E. (2004). Television and web advertising synergies. Journal of
Advertising, 33(2), 75-84.
Cho, S., & Krasser, A. H. (2011). What makes us care? The impact of cultural values, individual factors, and attention to media content on motivation for ethical consumerism. International Social Science Review, 86(1/2), 3-23.
Del Mar García-De los Salmones, M., Perez, A. (2018). Effectiveness of CSR Advertising: The Role of Reputation, Consumer Attribution, and Emotions. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(2), 194-208.
Edelman Earned Brand Report. (2018). Brands Take a Stand. Retrieved from
www.edelman.com/sites/default/files/2018-10-2018-Earned_Brand_Global_Report.pdf
Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J. (2000). Charitable programs and the retailer: do they mix?. Journal of Retailing, 76(3), 393-406.
Forehand, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003). When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated company intent on consumer skepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(2), 349-356.
Galan-Ladero, M. M., Galera-Casquet, C., & Wymer, W. (2013). Attitudes and intentions towards cause-related marketing: determinants of satisfaction and loyalty.
International review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 10(3), 253-269.
Goldsmith, E. R., & Yimin, Z. (2014). The influences of brand-consumer and
cause-congruence on consumer responses to cause related marketing. Journal of Applied
Marketing Theory, 5(2), 74-95.
Gupta, S., & Pirsch, J. (2006). The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(6), 314-326.
Grau, S. L., & Folse, J. A. G. (2007). Cause-related marketing (CRM): The influence of donation proximity and message-framing cues on the less-involved consumer.
Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 19-33.
Hajjat, M. M. (2003). Effect of cause-related marketing on attitudes and purchase intentions: the moderating role of cause involvement and donation size. Journal of Nonprofit &
Public Sector Marketing, 11(1), 93-109.
Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. New York, USA: The Guilford Press.
Henderson, T., & Arora, N. (2010). Promoting brands across categories with a social cause: Implementing effective embedded premium programs. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 41-60.
Kim, H., Kim, J., & Han, W. (2005). The effecs of cause-related marketing on company and brand attitudes. Seoul Journal of Business, 11(2), 83-117.
Kim, Y., J. & Lee, W. N. (2009). Overcoming consumer skepticism in cause-related marketing: The effects of corporate social responsibility and donation size claim objectivity. Journal of Promotion Management, 15(4), 465-483.
Koschate-Fisher, N., Stefan, I. V., & Hoyer, W. D. (2012). Willingness to pay for cause-related marketing: The impact of donation amount and moderating effects. Journal of
Lafferty, B.A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2005). Cause-brand alliances: does the cause help the brand or does the brand help the cause?. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 423-429.
Lafferty, B.A., Goldsmith, R. E., & Hult, G. T. M. (2004). The impact of the alliance on the partners: A look at cause-brand alliances. Psychology & Marketing, 21(7), 509-531. Lichtenstein, D.R., Drumwright, M.E., & Braig, B.M. (2004). The effect of corporate social
responsibility on customer donations to corporate supported nonprofits. Journal of
Marketing, 68(4), 16-32.
Matthes, J., & Wonneberger, A. (2014). The skeptical green consumer revisited: Testing the relationship between green consumerism and skepticism toward advertising. Journal
of Advertising, 43(2), 115-127.
Meyvis, T., & Van Osselaer, S. M. (2017). Increasing the power of your study by increasing the effect size. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(5), 1157-1173.
Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45-72.
Moosmayer, D. C., & Fuljahn, A. (2013). Corporate motive and fit in cause related marketing.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(3), 200-207.
Myers, B. & Kwon, W. S. (2013). A model of antecedents of consumers' post brand attitude upon exposure to a cause-brand alliance. International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 18(2), 73-89.
Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives: Examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing. Journal
of Advertising, 36(2), 63-74.
Park, J., Chung, T. L., Hall-Phillips, A., & Anaza, N. A. (2016). Loyalty to social ventures in social media: The role of social cause involvement, identification, and committment.
Pracejus, J. W., & Olsen, G. D. (2004). The role of brand/cause fit in the effectiveness of cause-related marketing campaigns. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 635-640. Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. M., Trimble, C. S., & Li, H. (2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship:
The mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 30-42.
Rim, H., & Kim, S. (2016). Dimensions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) skepticism and their impacts on public evaluations toward CSR. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 28(5-6), 248-267.
Ross, J. K., Patterson, L. T., & Stutts, M. A. (1992). Consumer perceptions of organizations that use cause-related marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
20(1), 93-97.
Samu, S., & Wymer, W. (2009). The effect of fit and dominance in cause marketing communications. Journal of the Business Research, 62(4), 432-440.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing
Research, 38(2), 225-243.
Shah, D. V., McLeod, D. M., Kim, E., Lee, S. Y., Gotlieb, M. R., Ho, S. S., & Breivik, H. (2007). Political consuumerism: How communication and consumption orientations drive "lifestyle politics". The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 611(1), 217-235.
Sheikh, S. U. R., & Beise-Zee, R. (2011). Corporate social responsibility or cause-related marketing? The role of cause specificity of CSR. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
28(1), 27-39.
Simmons, C. J., & Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing Research, 70(4), 154-169.
Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by th company it keeps? Journal of
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of
Consumer Research, 9(3), 287-300.
Spears, N., & Sing, S. N. (2004). Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53-66.
Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to charity as purchase incentives: How well they work may depend upon what you are trying to sell. Journal of Consumer
Research, 24(4), 434-446.
TOMS (n.d.). The TOMS Story. Retrieved from www.toms.com/about-toms.
Trimble, C.S., & Rifon, N. J. (2006). Consumer perceptions of compatibility in cause-related marketing messages. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 11(1), 29-47.
Van den Brink, D., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Pauwels, P. (2006). The effect of strategic and tactical cause-related marketing on consumers' brand loyalty. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 23(1), 15-25.
Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philantrophy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58-74. Waiguny, M. K., Nelson M. R., & Terlutter, R. (2014). The relationship of persuasion
knowledge, identification of commercial intent and persuasion outcomes in advergames—the role of media context and presence. Journal of Consumer Policy,
37(2), 257-277.
Walker, M., & Kent, A. (2013). The roles of credibility and social consciousness in the corporate philantrophy-consumer behavior relationship. Journal of Business Ethics,
116(2), 341-353.
Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1988). A typology of consumer responses to cause-related marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,
Wymer, W., & Samu, S. (2009). The influence of cause marketing associations on product and cause brand value. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Appendix A
Overview of respondents’ demographics Table 1 Respondents’ demographics (N = 244) Frequency % Gender identity Male 49 20.1% Female 192 78.7% Non-binary Prefer not to say
2 1 0.8% 0.4% Country of residence Australia 4 1.6% Austria 1 0.4% Belgium Canada China Colombia Croatia Denmark Finland France Germany India Ireland Italy Jordan
Lao People’s Democratic Republic Mexico Myanmar The Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Russian Federation Singapore 3 9 1 1 2 2 1 2 12 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 118 3 1 1 1 1 1.2% 3.7% 0.4% 0.4% 0.8% 0.8% 0.4% 0.8% 4.9% 1.2% 0.8% 1.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 48.4% 1.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%
South Africa Spain Sweden
United Kingdom of Great and Northern Ireland United States of America
1 3 9 32 24 0.4% 1.2% 3.7% 13.1% 9.8% Level of education No school completed
Less than high school degree
2 2
0.8% 0.8%
High school diploma or equivalent 13 5.3%
Secondary vocational education (MBO) 5 2.0%
Higher professional education (HBO) 21 8.6%
Bachelor’s degree 107 43.9%
Master’s degree 91 37.3%
Appendix B
Results of first pilot test regarding brand and cause selection Table 2
Results pilot test 1 (N = 15)
M SD Missing
values Brands
Lipton 4.93 1.28
Ben & Jerry’s Oreo
Reebok H&M
The North Face Lush Nivea 5.60 4.87 4.00 4.20 3.60 5.00 4.67 1.24 1.64 1.56 1.82 1.50 1.20 1.50 Kleenex IKEA 4.27 5.07 0.96 1.67 Causes WWF 5.46 1.81 2 UNICEF
Doctors Without Borders World Literacy Foundation Habitat for Humanity
5.23 5.31 5.11 4.67 1.69 1.93 1.76 1.73 2 2 6 6
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
