Overcoming consumer skepticism: The role of advertising claims and persuasive appeals on reducing consumer skepticism.
Keorapetse Mokgojoa
12058092
MASTER THESIS
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION: PERSUASIVE TRACK
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Supervisor: Stephanie Welten
Date of completion: 30 January 2020
Abstract
Previous research has focused on consumer skepticism as a trait and ways it affects advertising outcomes. Fewer studies have investigated the prevalence of situational
skepticism and features in advertisements that can reduce this form of skepticism in consumers. In an effort to resolve this a total of 191 participants took part in an online experiment through Qualtrics. The online experiment followed a 2 (claims: combined public serving and firm serving claim vs public serving claim) x 2 (appeals: appeal to reason vs appeal to emotion) between subject’s design. Findings revealed that emotionally appealing cause related marketing advertisements, could be an effective mechanism in reducing situational skepticism amongst consumers. Moreover, if an organization’s communication goal is to enhance brand credibility, cause related marketing would be a good strategy. Additionally, explicitly expressing an affiliation to a nonprofit organization, in those cause related marketing initiatives, could enhance brand credibility. This study advances theories regarding consumer advertising skepticism.
Introduction
Been shopping lately? Chances are while recently shopping you might have come across packaging of a product that expressed some affiliation to a social cause. This affiliation of products with causes is attracting a vast number of consumers, as it is acting as the base of differentiation between products, especially ones that have comparable price and quality. Reasons that this marketing tactic has gained popularity includes brands capitalizing on consumers heightened sense of ethical sensitivity. This is evident as Nielson (2014) released a report that expressed that half the sample of people that were approached worldwide (55%) stated that they would be willing to reward brands that give back to society, by paying more for their goods and services (Bae, 2016).
This phenomenon is a facet of corporate social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility centers around the idea that organizations have a duty to not only serve the organizations financial interests but also the interests of society (Bae, 2018). Corporate social responsibility comprises of activities such as cause promotion, cause related marketing, corporate social marketing, corporate philanthropy and community volunteering (Seitanidi & Ryan, 2007). Cause related marketing has become the most practiced form of corporate social responsibility (Kotler & Lee, 2005). The distinctive feature of cause related marketing includes the organization contributing financial resources or other types of resources to a selected cause (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). These contributions from the company would only be possible through revenue producing purchases from the consumer (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988).
Cause-related marketing offers a ‘win-win’ situation for organizations and consumers. Causes gain financial support and increased exposure (Runte et al, 2009) while companies achieve various communication and sales objectives (Wymer & Samu, 2003). This highlights the appeal of why brands and organizations are increasingly beginning to adopt this popular marketing tactic. Specifically, spending of brands and products on causes has grown from $120 million investments in 1990 to $1.78 billion investments in 2013 (CONE, 2014).
Although a challenge and major concern related to this tactic has been consumers skepticism towards cause related marketing (Forehand & Grier, 2003). Consumers often perceive that brands engage in this kind of marketing activity to exploit the cause for pure
business benefits (Singh, Kristensen & Villasenor, 2009). Research conducted by Insights in Marketing (2014) demonstrated that there was prevalent skepticism among consumers when it came to cause related marketing, 69 % of the consumers surveyed, disbelieved advertising claims (Bae, 2016). This disbelief of advertising claims is known as situational skepticism (Bae, 2016). Situational skepticism can be induced by features in an advertisement that can result in consumers forming an immediate skepticism about the motives of the marketers (Bae, 2016). These features include, claims in the adverts, that make consumers perceive the organization as being deceptive as well as appeals that seem difficult to validate, have known to induce situational skepticism (Forehand & Grier, 2003).
Predominantly, cause related marketing adverts often only state how, by way of support from consumers, the revenues made will be beneficial to society, these are known as public serving claims (Bae, 2016). These public serving claims induce skepticism as consumers perceive the firm as being deceptive. To elaborate, due to consumers persuasion knowledge, consumers are well aware alongside the public benefiting so will the organization i.e. profit, but the adverts do not proclaim this. This momentary feeling of deception induces situational skepticism (Forehand & Grier, 2003). Furthermore, another feature known to induce situational skepticism are persuasive appeals. Specifically, emotional appeals are known to induce skepticism as they usually offer limited information about the cause or non – profit organization (Obermiller et al, 2005). This study would add to theory by investigating the prevalence of situational skepticism. Additionally, this study aims to investigate claims in advertisements as well as appeals in adverts that induce situational skepticism. This study aims to investigate both factors in the same study in relation to situational skepticism. There is reason to believe that both features have known to affect situational skepticism, by including them in one study might have multiplicative effects. Moreover, this study will propose mechanisms that reduce situational skepticism. By investigating these mechanisms in the same study this could advance theories concerning advertising skepticism.
As gaining consumer trust is a top communication objective for many brands, this study will aid practitioners to create impactful and credulous cause related marketing campaigns. Particularly, as cause marketing continues to grow in both volume and momentum (cause related marketing generated nearly $2 billion USD in 2015) (CONE,
2014). There is an urgency for cause related advertising practitioners to create advertisements that don’t enhance skepticism in consumers.
Theoretical background Consumer skepticism
In previous cause related marketing research, skepticism was conceptualized as a trait that made individuals susceptible to doubt the truthfulness of various forms of marketing communication (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998). This then created a negative attitude toward the advertisement (Andrews, 1989). Although consumers certainly do vary in their predispositions toward skepticism, this study argues that consumer skepticism is also induced by situational variables. Such variables include claims in a cause related marketing advertisement that direct consumers attention to the motives of marketers. This then induces a temporary feeling of distrust, here forth known as situational skepticism (Forehand & Grier, 2003). Situational skepticism is used in this study to refer to a temporary state of consumer distrust or disbelief of marketer actions (Webb & Mohr, 1998).
The persuasion knowledge model provides a relevant explanation of the process that individuals go through that leads them to become skeptical. The persuasion knowledge model proposes that consumers over time develop an extensive understanding of various marketing tactics (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Consumers store this knowledge in their memory banks and when a persuasion attempt is noticed i.e an advert, this persuasion knowledge is then reactivated and thus assists the consumer to accept or neglect various marketing tactics (Friestad & Wright, 1994). The persuasion attempt in the current study pertains to cause related marketing advertisements. Due to the popularity of this promotional tactic consumers are accustomed to exposure of cause related marketing advertisements and therefore have a sound knowledge of the intentions of the brands (Forehand & Grier, 2003). Based on the claims in the advertisement consumers either accept advertisements as legitimate or immediately engage in a feeling of temporary skepticism which then leads them to reject the message (Friestad & Wright, 2003). Factors that are known to spark temporary skepticism amongst consumers include a mismatch between the brand and cause (Forehand & Grier, 2003), the size of the donation amount (Ellen et al,2000), the type of appeal and the moment consumers question the company’s motives due to the claims expressed (Forehand & Grier,
2003). The last two factors are of particular importance to this study. Hence, they will be investigated further in the following sections.
Advertising claims on consumer skepticism
Attribution theory provides a suitable framework of the process by which consumers go through prior to questioning the motives of the organization (Jones, 1976). Attribution theory explains how individuals evaluate the motives of others and explains how these perceived motives influence attitudes and behavior (Boush et al., 1994). According to attribution theory, consumers attribution process can result in positive attributions (e.g. attributing sponsorship as a public-serving act that focuses on the potential benefit to the well-being of individuals outside of the firm) as well as negative attribution (e.g. attributing sponsorship as a firm-serving act that focuses on the potential benefit to the firm itself (Forehand & Grier, 2003). To clarify, public serving claims are the most common features in most cause marketing advertisements. These public serving claims usually elaborate on how, by consumer actions, a portion of revenues will be donated to a charitable social cause or non – profit organizations (Singh, Kristensen, Villasenor, 2009). While due to persuasion knowledge, consumers are also aware there is a firm serving motivation that is not explicitly stated in the advertisement, such as profit. This causes discrepancy amongst what is stated in the claims and the organizations true intentions. This then results in negative attributions towards the organizations i.e attributing participation in cause marketing only to benefit the organization. This then leads to negative evaluations i.e high situational skepticism. (Forehand & Grier, 2003). Forehand & Grier (2003) tested this and confirm that participants were more likely to impute negative attributions for organizations when only public benefits were stated and this resulted in higher situational skepticism.
Therefore, this study proposes that if organizations were also transparent about the benefits, they receive this might induce a state of positive attribution. To rationalize this argument this study draws literature from two – sided advertising. Two – sided advertising includes mentioning negative claims alongside positive claims in an advert (Eisend, 2006). The positive claims are comparable to the public serving claims in this study as the public serving claims usually express the positive aspects related to cause marketing, such as the benefit to society. While the negative claims could be comparable to the firm serving claims as, from the perspective of the consumer, by purchasing the products they would be assisting
already powerful organizations to make more profit. This study proposes that situational skepticism could potentially be reduced by including firm serving benefits alongside public serving claims. This would be counterintuitive to what the consumers expect in cause marketing i.e as most cause marketing only state public serving benefits. As this is counterintuitive to what the consumers expect, this is proven to lead to less scrutiny of the advert and more cognitive processing of the message and hence message acceptance (Eisend, 2006).
Bae (2018) investigated whether including combined firm serving as well as public serving claims in an advertisement could potentially result in participants ascribing positive attributions to this format. As well as if this format could inhibit the development of situational skepticism. Results indicated that participants ascribed positive attributions to the organization when the combined claims condition was adopted. The combined claims conditions also inhibited situational skepticism. Moreover, consumers attributions are known to affect credibility (Ellen et al., 2006) and attitudinal research confirms that credibility is a positive predicter of purchase intention (Chang, 2011). Thus, the hypothesis that emerges is:
H1: Claims that express firm serving benefits combined with claims of public serving
benefits in a cause related marketing advertisement will result in lower a) situational
skepticism and b) increased brand credibility and c) increased purchase intentions compared
to a cause related marketing advertisement that incorporates only public serving claims.
Type of appeal
As mentioned, prior, another factor known to induce situational skepticism is the type of appeal. Two types of appeals are predominant in cause related marketing advertisements: appeal to reason/informative appeal and appeal to emotions (Bae, 2016). For the purpose of this study informative appeals will be referred to as appeals to reason. Puto & Wells (1984) characterized that reason appeals predominantly provide relevant brand data, clearly and logically. Emotional adverts predominantly provide an emotional experience that is relevant to the use of the brand (Puto & Wells, 1984). Obermiller et al., (2005) tested the hypothesized relation between ad skepticism with reason and emotional appeals. The study revealed that participants experienced more skepticism when presented with an emotional appeal compared to when they were presented with a reason appeal. This could be attributed to reason appeals providing more relevant information, especially in the context of cause
related marketing, as consumers are weary about whether or not the revenues are indeed donated to a cause or used to benefit of the company (Obermiller et al, 2005). As the notion of ‘relevant information’ was still unclear this study draws on literature from Polloch (2003) for clarification.
Pollach’s (2003) content analysis concluded that the persuasive appeals organizations used to enhance brand credibility are appeals to reason and appeals to emotions. The appeal to reason elements included elements such as an affiliation to a non-profit organization. This affiliation was expressed by simply including the logo of the non -profit organization in the advert. The second most prominent feature that organizations used to enhance reason were hyperlinks i.e links that direct consumers to the non – profit organizations website. Furthermore Pollach (2003) interviewed organizations on reasons for using these features. Organizations stated that the main reason for expressing an affiliation to a non-profit include that by expressing this affiliation, this acts as a cue to the consumer that the organization fulfills its social commitment to the nonprofit organization. Therefore, operationalization of the appeal to reason condition in this study, we adopt advice from Pollach (2003) study regarding features that make organizations seem more credible. Specifically, an indication of an affiliation to a nonprofit organization as well as hyperlinks implemented in the advertisement. Moreover, Perks et al. (2013) proclaim that consumers often perceive non – profit organizations as trustworthy. Therefore, when an advert incorporates an affiliation to a non – profit this feeling of trustworthiness is spilled over to the brand. With the abovementioned the following hypothesis can be deduced:
H2: Participants exposed to a cause related marketing advertisement that incorporates an
appeal to reason advert will reduce a) situational skepticism and enhance b) corporate
credibility and to c) purchase intentions compared to an emotionally appealing cause related
marketing advertisement.
Interaction effect of claims and appeals
Situational skepticism is known to be induced by certain advertising claims.
Specifically claims that are perceived as deceptive and claims that provide consumers with little information. Firstly, clarification on why deception would lead to high situational skepticism is discussed followed by why providing little information in a cause related
correlated with situational skepticism as well as persuasion knowledge (Bae, 2018). The higher the persuasion knowledge a person has, the more suspicious they are of the underlying ulterior motives of the firm in adverts (Friestad & Wright, 1994). For example, individuals with high in persuasion knowledge would believe that cause related marketing has been used by companies that are motivated by profit interests rather than by social well-being.
Therefore, one would believe that those with greater persuasion knowledge, may become more suspicious of the underlying ulterior motive when only a public serving claim is presented as they are aware that despite the social well-being of society, the organization is interested in making a profit. This perceived mismatch, from the consumer, about the
organization could lead to high situational skepticism. To circumvent that this study proposes that when organizations are transparent about their benefits in adverts, i.e profits, this could reduce negative cognitive evaluations (skepticism). We draw on theory from two-sided advertising as well as optimal arousal theory (Berlyne, 1971). Which states that when organizations are transparent about the negative aspects in advertisement, this is counterintuitive to what the consumers expect, this then reduces counterarguments in consumers and this motivates consumers to pay more attention to processing the message (Eisend, 2006). In the same way, this study proposes by stating firm serving alongside public serving claims in adverts, this is counterintuitive to most cause related marketing
advertisements. This would lead consumers to process the message with less
counterarguments hence reducing any situational skepticism. Two- sided advertising is known to particularly work for individuals who already hold negative opinions regarding a topic (Eisend, 2006), this is comparable to individuals who have a high persuasion
knowledge. Two – sided adverts are also known to increase brand credibility as well as purchase intention (Eisend, 2006).
Another factor known to induce situational skepticism are claims in adverts that provide consumers with little information. Individuals with high persuasion knowledge are known to scrutinize or counterargue message features in an advert (Webb & Mohr, 1998). For example, if a consumer is exposed to a cause marketing advert that expresses no affiliation to a nonprofit organization, a consumer with high persuasion knowledge might argue that there is no guarantee that donations are indeed going towards this cause, this could lead to situational skepticism (Webb & Mohr, 1998). Therefore, this study proposes by providing complete information that consumers are able to verify, this would lead to a
include an affiliation to a nonprofit organization. Lastly adopting literature from native advertising, informational appeals were known to be less likely to trigger persuasive intent (Kim & Hancock 2017). Meaning that when adverts incorporate information that the consumer perceives as valuable, there is automatically a reduction in the perception that the advert is meant for persuasive purposes. This could therefore reduce situational skepticism.
Therefore, this study proposes that by including the two elements that both seem to reduce situational skepticism individually (combined firm and public claims; reason appeals). The combined effect of these two elements will lead to a multiplicative interaction effect i.e a significantly increased reduction of situational skepticism. Therefore, the following
hypothesis can be deduced.
H3: Participants situational skepticism will be a) reduced and b) brand credibility and c)
purchase intention enhanced when exposed to a cause related marketing advertisement that incorporates combined firm serving as well as public serving claims, compared to an advertisement that only incorporates public serving claims. This effect will be stronger for reason appeals compared to emotional appeals.
Figure 1. Proposed model
Method Situational skepticism Appeals: Reason vs. Emotion Claims: Public serving and firm
serving claims vs.
Public serving claims Brand credibility
Procedure
Before participating in the experiment, the participants were given a general explanation about the purpose of the study. Thereafter participants were informed: that they could participant voluntarily, for their informed consent; if they were 18 years or older. Participants were asked to complete the general advertising measure (control variable). Following that participants were exposed to one of the four stimuli/conditions and then asked to answer questions that would measure situational skepticism, brand credibility and purchase intention. Participants were then asked to complete manipulation check questions, the other
control variable measure (cause involvement) and several demographic questions. Finally, participants were debriefed about the fictitious nature of the brands and non -profit organization and informed about the true nature of the experiment.
Study design and participants
The online Qualtrics experiment initially incorporated 325 participants between the ages of 24 – 39 years. These participants were recruited by various social media channels. After data cleaning 134 participants were excluded due to incomplete completion of
questionnaires. One participant completed the majority of the questionnaire but halted right before the demographic’s questions. Therefore, a series mean for age and gender were calculated and included to prevent SPSS tracking missing values.
Among the 191 participants, 61 were (34 %) were male, 125 (65 %) were female and 5 identified as non-binary (3%), ranging from 24 -39 years old, (Mage = 29.75, SD = 7.65).
The majority of participants, 96 (50%), were African, while 55 (30%) participants were European and 40 (21%) participants were from various other continents. The majority of the respondents possessed a bachelor’s degree 144 (60%), 38 (20%) participants possessed a master’s degree and 21 (11%) only possessed a high school degree while 18 (9%) possessed less than a high school diploma. The age cohort, millennials, were selected as they are characterized as the most altruistic compared to Generation Z and Baby Boomers (Cone, 2014). Additionally, they account for $1 trillion dollars of current U.S consumer spending (Cone, 2014), making this group attractive to brands as they have huge amounts of spending power.
To investigate the types of cause related marketing advertisement’s on participants situational skepticism, brand credibility and purchase intention a 2 (claims: combined firm and public serving vs public serving only) x 2 (appeals: appeal to reason vs appeal to emotion message features) between subject’s factorial design was employed. Both factors were
manipulated variables, i.e., the claims and appeals, while the dependent variables situational skepticism, brand credibility and purchase intention were measured.
Stimuli development
Based on Cone’s (2013) social impact research, 36% of millennials regard economic development as the most pressing issue. In the economic development realm of causes, low literacy levels in developing countries seemed most relevant to the product category choice (stationary supplies) (Forehand & Grier, 2003). A stationary supplies brand was selected as it is considered a relatively low involvement product (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984). Low
involvement products are desirable to minimize the cognitive effort necessary to process the products attributes (Petty et al., 1989). South Sudan encompasses the lowest literacy rates (UNESCO, 2020).
Face Validity Test. A fictious brand (Elementry) and a non-profit organization
(Educative) were created to prevent any bias due to existing perceptions of a known brand or nonprofit organization (Lafferty, 2007). The stimuli were evaluated via a pilot face-validity test. The aim of these tests was to assess whether the claims and appeals were perceived correctly. The evaluation criteria included discriminating, by means of median split between groups that were high in agreeance or low in agreeance. If the majority on participants were in the high in agreeance category, then this would indicate that the claims or appeals were perceived as what they were intended to be perceived as. Additionally, independent samples t -tests were conducted to evaluate mean differences between these high and low agreeance groups. All results as well as the procedure are included in the notes (Note 6).
Manipulation checks
Social impact manipulation check. To assess if the public claims condition was
perceived as socially driven participants responded to the following question. “When thinking back to the advertisement you were exposed to; would you perceive the Elementry brand as socially driven?”. Participants indicated they agreement or disagreement on a scale from 1 to 7, 1 = “completely agree”, 7 = “completely disagree”.
Profit driven manipulation check. To assess if participants perceived the combined
claims condition, specifically the firm serving claim as being profit driven. Participants responded to the following question “When thinking back to the advertisement you were exposed to; would you perceive the Elementry brand as profit driven?”. Participants indicated their agreement or disagreement on a scale from 1 to 7, 1 = “completely disagree”, 7 =
“completely agree”.
Informative appeal manipulation check. To assess if the appeal to reason advert was
perceived as informative, consumers answered the following question: “When thinking back to the advertisement you were exposed to; would you perceive it as informative?”.
Participants indicated their agreement or disagreement on a scale from 1 to 7, 1 = “completely disagree”, 7 = “completely agree”.
Emotional appeal manipulation check. To assess if the appeal to emotion advert
was perceived as emotional, consumers responded to the following question: “When thinking back to the advertisement you were exposed to, would you perceive it as emotionally
appealing?”. Participants indicated their agreement or disagreement on a scale from 1 to 7, 1 = “completely disagree”, 7 = “completely agree”.
Claims. Please refer to Appendix A for visual. The textual layout either comprised of
combined firm serving as well as public serving claims or just public serving claims.
Specifically, firm serving benefits were expressed with the following statement “Your actions can assist Elementry in being the most attractive stationary supplies brand among consumers who wish to make a social impact”. Public serving benefits included “Your actions can assist Elementry to contribute to decreasing illiteracy in South Sudan’. Statements similar to these were successfully used in previous research by Seo et al., (2017) and Bae (2016) to convey firm serving benefits as well as public serving benefits.
Appeals. Please refer to Appendix A. Two levels of this factor were created: i.e
appeal to reason vs appeal to emotion. For the for the appeal to reason factor in this study an advert was created that incorporates the Elementry brand name and logo with an indication that the brand was affiliated to the nonprofit organization called Educative and a hyperlink
that would ideally redirect the participants to the non-profit organization’s website (Pollach, 2003).
For the appeal to emotion condition, the operationalization comprised of a picture of a young boy sitting at an imaginary desk, the imaginary desk and school supplies seemed to be roughly drawn onto the real-life image to emphasize the artificialness of those items. This follows a similar operationalization by Matthens et al., (2017). All other elements of the advertisement remained the same (brand name, logo, textual layout) except the elements that explicitly needed to be manipulated.
Dependent Measures
Situational skepticism. Situational skepticism is defined as a momentary state of
distrust and suspicion of an organization’s motives (Forehand & Grier, 2003). For the assessment of situational skepticism, the participants completed a three item, seven-point scale adopted from Ford et al (1990). The participants indicated their agreement on a seven-point scale (1= “completely disagree”, 7 = “completely agree”). The principal axis factor analysis revealed EV = 2.13, R2 = 0. 71, M = 3.60, SD = 1.25, Min = 1, Max = 7, 𝛼 = .79.
Brand credibility. Brand credibility is defined as the believability of the product
information contained in a brand (Newell & Goldsmiths, 2001). For the assessment of brand credibility, the participants completed a nine-item measure. Participants indicated their agreement or disagreement on a seven-point scale adapted from Newell & Goldsmiths (2001). 1 = “completely disagree”, 7 = “completely agree”. The principal axis factor analysis revealed EV = 6.71, R2 = 0. 75, M = 3.57, SD = 1.25, Min = 1, Max = 7, 𝛼 = .95.
Intention to purchase. Intention to purchase is defined as an individual’s
conscious plan to make an effort to purchase a brand/product (IGI, 2019). For the assessment of purchase intention, participants completed a two-item measure. Participants indicated their agreement on a seven – point scale adopted from MacKenzie and Lutz (1989). 1 =
“completely disagree”, 7 = “completely agree”. See appendix for full measure. A bivariate correlation analysis was conducted to assess whether the two items were correlated. There appears to be a correlation r = .91, p < .001.
Two control variables that were predicted to affect the results in previous studies , were included in the questionnaire (Bae, 2018). Participants indicated their agreement or disagreement on a 7-point scale. 1 = “completely disagree”, 7 = “completely agree’ for both control variables.
General advertising skepticism. For the assessment of general advertising.
Participants completed a 9 - nine item measure adapted from Obermiller & Spangenberg (1998). The 7-point scale ranged from 1 = “completely disagree”, 7 = “completely agree”. See appendix for complete measure. A principal axis factor analysis revealed EV = 5.87, R2
= 0.65, M = 3.16 SD = 1.31, Min = 1, Max = 7, 𝛼 = .932.
Cause involvement. For the assessment of cause involvement. Participants
completed a 5-item measure adopted from (Zaichkowsky, 1985). See appendix for complete measure. The 7 – point scale ranged from 1 = “completely disagree”, 7 = “completely agree”. The principal axis factor analysis revealed EV = 3.44, R2 =0 .69, M = 3.32, SD = 1.50, Min =
1, Max = 7, 𝛼 = .88.
Results Randomization Checks
In order to evaluate if participants age was comparable over the claim’s conditions (combined public and firm serving versus public only), a one-way ANOVA was conducted. This ANOVA with claims as the independent variable and age as a dependent variable revealed that participants mean age in the combined firm and public condition (M = 30.10 years, SD = 8.05) was not significantly different from participants mean age in the public only serving, claims condition ( M = 29.37 years, SD = 724), F (1,189) = .43, p = .512.
In order to check if participants were comparable over the appeals factor (appeal to reason versus appeal to emotions) a one-way ANOVA was conducted, this ANOVA included the appeals condition as the independent variable and age as the dependent variable. The ANOVA revealed that participants mean age in the appeals condition was not significantly different. Appeal to reason (M = 30.42 years, SD = 8.83) and appeal to emotion (M = 29.11 years, SD = 6.33), F (1, 189) = 1.40, p = .238).
In order to assess if participants gender was comparable between the two factors (claims versus appeals), two chi square test of independence was calculated. The first Chi square test of independence calculated if gender was comparable between the claims condition (public and firm serving versus public only). There was not a significant association between the gender and the claims condition 𝜒2 (4) (N = 191) = .13, p = .501.
Meaning gender is comparable between the firm and public serving condition and the public serving only claims conditions.
The second Chi square test of independence calculated if gender was comparable between the appeals condition (appeal to reason versus appeal to emotion). There was not a significant association between gender and the appeals condition 𝜒2 (4) (N = 191) = .16, p =
.306. Indicating that distributions of gender and appeals do not differ from each other.
Control variables
General advertising skepticism. Two, two-way ANOVA were conducted to
investigate if it was necessary to include these variables as a controls. The first ANOVA was conducted to assess the influence of two independent variables (claims and appeals) on general advertising skepticism. Claims included two levels (firm and public serving benefit versus public benefit) and appeals also consisted of two levels (appeal to reason versus appeal to emotion). No significant effects were revealed. The main effect of claims yielded an F ratio of F (1, 187) = 2.23, p =.137, 𝜂2= .012, indicating no significant difference
between the two groups, public and firm serving (M = 3.03, SE =.131) and public serving only (M = 3.31, SE =.135). The main effect of appeals yielded an F ratio of F (1,187) = .67, p = .416, 𝜂2 = .004 indicating no significant difference between the two groups, appeal to reason (M = 3.24, SE =.135) and appeal to emotions (M = 3.09, SD =.131). The interaction effect was also not significant F (1,187) = 2.54, p = .113, 𝜂2= .013. There appears to be no significant difference between the claims conditions groups (firm and public serving versus public serving) as well as the appeals groups condition (appeal to reason versus appeal to emotion) in general advertising skepticism, therefore this variable will be excluded as a control variable in the main analysis.
Cause involvement. The second two-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the
(firm and public serving versus public serving) and appeals also consisted of two levels (appeal to reason versus appeal to emotion). No effect was significant at the .05 significance level. The main effect of claims yielded an F ratio of F (1,187) = .37, p = .545, 𝜂2= .002. Indicating no significant difference between the two claims groups, firm and public serving (M = 3.38, SE = .151) compared to public serving (M = 3.24, SE = .154). The main effect if appeals yielded an F ratio of F (1, 187) = 1.19, p = .276, 𝜂2= .006. Indicating no significant difference between the appeal conditions, appeal to reason (M = 3.20, SE = .154) compared to the appeal to emotions group (M = 3.43, SE = .151). The interaction effect was not significant F (1,187) = 1.65, p = .201, 𝜂2 = .009. There appears to be no significant difference between the claims conditions groups (firm and public serving versus public serving) as well as the appeals groups condition (appeal to reason versus appeal to emotion) in cause involvement, therefore this variable will be excluded as a control variable in the analysis. As the first criteria for including control variables has not been met, there is no need to elaborate on the correlations for control variables and dependent variables, although they are recorded. See Table 1.
Bivariate correlations: Control variables and dependent variables
Dependent variables (situational skepticism, brand credibility, purchase intention) and control variables (general advertising skepticism, cause involvement) were analyzed via a bivariate correlation analysis to assess if firstly the dependent variables are correlated for inclusion in the MANOVA and secondly to check if control variables had to be included in the main analyses. The bivariate analysis found that each dependent variable and control variable were correlated. Specifically, situational skepticism was correlated with brand credibility r = .80, N = 191, p <.001, situational skepticism was positively correlated with purchase intention r = .67, N = 191, p < .001 and brand credibility was positively correlated with purchase intention r = .73, N = 191, p < .001. Therefore, as all dependent variables are significantly correlated, they can all be included in the MANOVA. See table 1.
Manipulation checks
To assess if manipulations were successful across all four conditions. One-way ANOVA’s were utilized with the relevant factor as the independent variable and the target manipulation check measure as the dependent variable.
Profit driven manipulation check. To assess if the combined firm and public serving claim
was perceived as profit driven A one-way ANOVA with the claims condition (firm and public serving vs public serving) as independent variables and profit driven manipulation check as dependent variable indicated that participants who were exposed to the combined public and firm serving benefits advertisements found it marginally more profit driven (M = 4.72, SD = 1.80) compared to the public serving claims only advertisement (M= 4.26, SD = 1.76), F (1, 188) = 3.29 , p = .071, 𝜂2 = .042.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations on control variables and
dependent variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 1. Cause involvement 3.32 1.49 -.145* -.228** -.245** -.281** 2. General advertising skepticism 3.16 1.32 -.145* .319** .419** .344** 3. Situational skepticism 3.60 1.25 -.228** .319** .797** .672** 4. Brand credibility 3.60 1.25 -.245** .419** .797** .730** 5. Purchase Intention 3.35 1.61 -.281** .344** .672** .730** Note: **correlation is significant at 0.01 level; *correlation is significant at 0.05 level.
Socially impact manipulation check. To assess if the public serving claim was
perceived as socially driven. The claims condition (firm and public serving versus public serving) was included as an independent variable while the socially driven manipulation check measure was included as the dependent variable. The ANOVA revealed the
advertisement that incorporated a public serving benefit claim only (M = 4.72, SD = 1.83) was significantly considered more socially driven than the advertisement with the combined public and firm serving benefit claims (M = 4.40, SD =1.77), F (1, 189) = 5.32, p = .022, 𝜂2 = .028.
Informative appeal manipulation check. To assess if participants perceived appeal
to reason more informative. In a one-way ANOVA, appeals were included as an independent variable and the informative appeal manipulation check measure as a dependent variable. The ANOVA indicated that participants that were exposed to the appeal to reason, found it
significantly more informative (M = 3.35, SD = 1.84) than participants who were exposed to the emotionally appealing advertisement (M = 2.90, SD = 1.60), F (1, 188) = 7.87, p = .006, 𝜂2 = .040.
Emotional appeal manipulation check. To assess if participants perceived the
emotional appeals condition as more emotional. In the ANOVA, appeals were included as an independent variable and the emotional appeal manipulation check as the dependent variable. The ANOVA revealed that participants that were exposed to the appeal to emotion
advertisement found it significantly more emotional (M = 4.18, SD = 1.93) compared to the appeal to reason advertisement (M = 3.13, SD = 1.94), F (1, 188) = 7.29, p = .008, 𝜂2 = .037
Hypothesis tests
To assesses the effect of the two factors (claims, appeals) on situational skepticism, brand credibility and purchase intention a MANOVA was utilized. The results below are structed in terms of the multivariate analysis results and thereafter univariate results for each dependent variable.
Multivariate analysis. A 2 x 2 between subjects MANOVA was used to analyze
claims (combined firm and public serving, public serving) and appeals (appeal to reason, appeal to emotion) as independent variables and situational skepticism brand credibility and purchase intention as dependent variables to certain cause related marketing advertisements. Using, Wilk’s lambda as a criterion, the combined claims factor revealed a non- significant effect on the combined dependent variables F (3, 185) = .27, p = .849, 𝜂2= .004. The
combined appeals factor revealed a marginally significant effect on the combined dependent variables F (3, 185) = 2.34, p = .075, 𝜂2= .036. Moreover, the interaction effect between claims and appeals was not significant on the combined dependent variables F (3, 185) = .68, p = .563, 𝜂2= .011. See Table 2.
Table 2. Results of multivariate tests
Claims .990 3, 185 .849 .598 .004
Appeals .970 3, 185 1.919 .075 .036
Claims*Appeals .997 3, 185 .192 .563 .011
Note: *** p < .001; ** p < .010; *p < .050
Situational skepticism. Univariate ANOVA’s with claims and appeals as independent
variables and situational skepticism as dependent variables, revealed that the combined claims condition had a non- significant main effect on situational skepticism F (1, 187) = .49, p = .484, 𝜂2= .003, firm and public serving group (M = 3.67, SE =.125) versus public serving group (M = 3.54, SE = .128).Rejecting H1a. Also, it was revealed that the appeals condition had a significant main effect on situational skepticism F (1, 187) = 6.10, p = .014, 𝜂2 = .032. Accepting H2a Specifically, the appeal to reason had a higher level of situational skepticism (M = 3.82, SE =.128) compared to the appeal to emotion group (M = 3.38, SE = .125). The interaction effect between the claims factor and appeals factor on situational skepticism was not significant F (1, 187) = .52, p = .471, 𝜂2=.003. Rejecting H3a. Even though the results are non-significant, means and standard error are visualized below (figure 1) for the purpose of this assignment.
Figure 1. Mean situational skepticism values for claims condition (firm and public serving
and public serving) for both appeal conditions (reason and emotion). Error bars denote one standard error above and below the mean.
Brand credibility. Univariate ANOVA’s with claims and appeals as independent
variables and brand credibility as dependent variables, revealed that the combined claims condition had a non - significant effect on brand credibility F (1, 187) = .14, p = .710, 𝜂2= .001. Firm and public serving (M = 3.61, SE = .125) versus public serving (M = 3.54, SE =.128). Rejecting H1b. Individual between subject’s ANOVA’s revealed that the combined appeals conditions had a significant effect on brand credibility, F (1, 187) = 4.12, p = .044, 𝜂2= .022. Accepting H2b. Separately the appeal to reason group (M = 3.76, SE = .128) was significantly more credible than the appeal to emotions group (M = 3.40, SE = .125)
Individual subjects ANOVAs revealed that the interaction effect comprising of the claims condition and appeals conditions on brand credibility was not significant F (1,187) = 1.75, p = .19, 𝜂2= .009. Rejecting H3b. See figure 2.
3,6 3,12 3,35 3,34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reason Emotion Situation al sk ept icis m
Figure 2. Mean brand credibility values for claims condition (firm and public serving
and public serving) for both appeal conditions (reason and emotion). Error bars denote one standard error above and below the mean.
Purchase intention. Univariate ANOVA’s with claims and appeals as independent
variables and purchase intention as dependent variables, revealed that the combined claims
condition had a non-significant effect on purchase intention F (1, 187) = .00, p = .957, 𝜂2= .000. Firm and public serving (M = 3.36, SE = .125) versus public serving (M = 3.54, SE = .167). Rejecting H1c. Individual between subject’s ANOVA’s revealed that the combined appeals condition had a non-significant effect on purchase intention F (1,187) = 1.08, p =.300, 𝜂2= .006. Appeal to reason group (M = 3.47, SE = .167) versus appeal to emotion (M = 3.23, SE = .163). Rejecting H2c. Individual between subject’s ANOVA’s revealed the interaction effect comprising of the claims conditions as well as the appeal conditions was not significant F (1, 187) = 1.01, p = .315, 𝜂2 = .005. Rejecting H3c. Although the results turned out as non-significant, means and standard errors are visualized for the purpose of this assignment. See figure 3.
3,6 3,35 3,12 3,34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reason Emotion Br an d Cr ed ib ility
Figure 3. Mean purchase intention for claims condition (firm and public serving and public
serving) for both appeal conditions (reason and emotion). Error bars denote one standard error above and below the means.
Conclusion and Discussion
This study aimed to investigate which features in a cause related marketing advert could reduce situational skepticism and enhance brand credibility as well as purchase
intention. A multivariate analysis revealed that the claims factor (firm and public serving and public serving), the appeals factor (appeal to reason and appeal to emotion) as well as the interaction effect had a non - significant effect on the combined dependent variables
(situational skepticism, brand credibility and purchase intention). Follow-up univariate tests on each dependent variable separately revealed that the claims condition had a
non-significant effect on situational skepticism, rejecting H1a, that combined public serving as well as firm serving claims would lead to reduced situational skepticism. While the combined appeals condition had a significant effect on situational skepticism, meaning that appeals (appeal to reason and appeal to emotion) have a significant effect on situational skepticism. Further investigation of the effect revealed that the appeal to reason condition induced higher situational skepticism amongst participants compared to the appeal to emotion advert, this result is inverse to the hypothesized expectation. Therefore, rejecting H2a. Conversely, the interaction effect of claims and factors had a non-significant effect on situational skepticism,
3,6 3,35 3,12 3,34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reason Emotion Pu rc hase in te ntion
resulting in rejection of H3a. Secondly, analysis revealed that the combined claims condition had a non -significant effect on brand credibility, resulting in rejection of H1b, that combined firm and public serving claims would increase brand credibility. While the combined appeals condition had a significant effect on brand credibility resulting in acceptance of H2b, the appeal to reason advert was considered more credible compared to the appeal to emotion condition. Conversely, the interaction effect, incorporating claims and appeals and its effect on brand credibility did not reveal a significant effect thus rejection of H3b. Lastly, analysis revealed that the combined claims condition as well as the combined appeals condition, both had a non-significant effect on purchase intention, causing rejection of H1c as well as H2c that combined firm and public serving claims as well as the appeal to reason advert would lead to purchase intention. Moreover, the interaction effect, comprising of the claims
condition as well as the appeals condition had a non-significant effect on purchase intention thus resulting in rejection of H3c.
Unfortunately, the study did not find that incorporating firm and public benefits, in a cause related marketing advertisement, was enough to cause a reduction in situational
skepticism compared to adverts that incorporated an advert that only stipulated public serving claims. This is contrary to Forehand and Grier (2003) who claim that when organizations outright state that they, as well as the public will benefit could be an effective strategy to reduce consumer skepticism. The main reason for the lack of results could be is related to a theory mentioned previously, attribution theory. Specifically, attribution is a process that consumers go through prior to questioning the motives of an organization. Furthermore, attribution theory explains how individuals evaluate the motives of others and explains how these perceived motives influence attitudes and behaviors. To elaborate, in the context of this study in order for participants to form skepticism of an organization they would need to evaluate what they perceive the motives of an organization to be. For instance, if participants were exposed to the public serving claim condition, they should first be asked, after exposure to the stimuli, why the think the organization is engaging in this marketing tactic. After consumers go through this thought process, this would lead consumers to either forming a positive or negative attribution towards the organization i.e either positive or negative evaluations of the organization. As consumers with high persuasion knowledge would scrutinize the advert and conclude that it doesn’t seem credible. This would lead to a feeling of deception and this feeling of deceptive is known to affect situational skepticism (Bae, 2018). Future research could induce this attribution thinking process after exposure to the
combined firm and public serving claims i.e make participants answer questions about the motives of the organization before measuring skepticism. Future research could also uncover any other underlying mechanisms, in terms of consumers individual characteristics, that could affect this relationship.
Secondly factors that could have influenced the lack of results are nationality and general African trait skepticism. To elaborate we noticed a large portion of participants were African (50%). Therefore, in an effort to evaluate if this factor affected the main results in anyway an analysis was performed (See note 5). This analysis revealed that there was a marginally significant difference in situational skepticism between Africans and non-Africans see notes. Africans ranked higher in situational skepticism compared to non – Africans. Further investigated revealed that generally Africans tend to be more skeptical than Europeans (Nonprofit,2020). This could stem from various socio – economic as well as historical factors (Moyo,2019). When it comes to donations and cause marketing It seems that Africans are more skeptical to cause marketing too (Nonprofitpro, 2020). This stems from the ‘we receive we don’t give’ mentality’ explains Moyo (2009). Therefore, this could impact the results of this study as despite participants being exposed to any of the stimuli, the African participants (which accounted for the majority) would have been skeptical regardless of claims or appeals. Therefore, future research could control for this by executing the study to populations that do not rank high in general trait-based skepticism.
Conversely significant results were found on the appeal to reason advertisement compared to the appeal to emotions advert on brand credibility. Meaning participants found the reason appeal more credible. The features of the appeal to reason condition included a clear affiliation to a non -profit organization. This confirms Pollach’s (2003) content analysis results. Which state that adverts that encompass the following features: a clear affiliation to a nonprofit organization could enhance credibility amongst consumers. Therefore, including an a cue of an affiliation to a non - profit organization in reason appeals could enhance the credibility of the brand.
Interestingly an inverse effect was found between the appeal to emotions condition and situational skepticism. Specifically, participants indicated that the appeal to emotions
advertisement had a lower level of situational skepticism compared to the appeal to reason advertisement. The hypothesis, H2a, predicted that the appeal to reason advert would have a
lower level of skepticism. Features of the appeal to emotions advert included a graphic image. Therefore, indicating that graphic images are a necessary feature to include in cause marketing ads as they reduce consumer skepticism.
This study has three major scientific contributions. Firstly, this study has
experimentally tested and identified features in cause related marking adverts that can reduce situational skepticism. Secondly, this study has experimentally tested features in a cause advert that could enhance brand credibility. Past research qualitatively analyzed these
features in the field of corporate social reasonability through content analysis (Pollach, 2003). Lastly this study rejects the notion that cause related marketing advertisements that stipulate both firm and public serving benefit claims are ample in reducing situational skepticism amongst consumers. This study has highlighted the fact that there seems to be more mechanisms at play before consumers situational skepticism is reduced.
Alongside the theoretical implications this study has practical implications. Firstly, if practitioners and organizations wish to adopt cause related marketing in their marketing strategy, one mechanism to reduce consumer skepticism is to create emotionally appealing advertisement with graphic images. Moreover, if a brands communication objective entails enhancing brand credibility through cause adverts, affiliation to a nonprofit would be effective.
Notes
1. The was a significant difference between the two groups high in agreeance and low in agreeance in terms of their perception of the public serving claims. High in agreeance groups (M = 5.00, SD = .000) thought the statement was completely beneficial to the public, while (M = 2.82, SD = 1.074) did not, t (41) = 10.40, p <.001.
2. There was a significant difference between high and low agreeance groups regarding their perception of the firm benefit claim. High agreeance groups perceived the statement to be beneficial to the firm (M = 5.00, SD = .000), compared to low agreeance groups (M = 3.42, SD = 1.00), t (41) = 9.03, p < .001
3. There was a significant difference between high and low groups regarding their perception of the appeal to reason advert. The high agreeance group perceived the appeal to reason advert as informative (M = 4.91, SD = .288) compared to the low agreeance group (M = 2.00, SD = .65) t (41) = 19.46, p < .001.
4. There was a significant difference between high and low groups regarding their perception of the appeal to emotions advert. The high agreeance group perceived the appeal to emotions advert more emotional (M = 5.00, SD = .000) compared to the low agreeance group (M = 3.22, SD = .94), t (41) = 9.47, p < .001.
5. The 97 participants that were African (M = 3. 75, SD = 1.23) were marginally more situationally skeptical compared to the 94 non – Africans (M= 3.43, SD = 1.25), t (189), p = .087.
6. A total of 43 participants, not included in the main study, were asked to complete a brief questionnaire with four questions. The first question aimed to assess if the following statement ‘Your actions can contribute to decreasing illiteracy in South Sudan’ was perceived as being beneficial to the public on a scale from 1 to 5, 1 = “completely non beneficial to public”; 5 = “completely beneficial to public”. After analysis it was discovered Mdn = 5, therefore any value lower than five would mean people low disagreement and five would be agreement. Descriptive statistics revealed that majority of participants, 26 (61%) agreed that the statement was beneficial to public (M = 1.40, SD = .50). While 17 (34%) did not agree that the statement was
beneficial to public.
The second question aimed to assess if the following statement ‘Your actions will assist our brand in being the more attractive brand among consumers’ was
perceived as being beneficial to the brand, on a scale from 1 to 5, 1 = “completely non -beneficial to the brand”; 5 = “completely beneficial to the brand”. Participants
indicated that the statement was perceived as more beneficial to the brand.
Descriptive statistics indicate, Mdn = 5, majority of participants 31 (72.1%) agreed that the statement was considered beneficial to the firm compared to 12 (27.9%) that didn’t (M = 1.28, SD = .45). See note 2.
Thereafter participants were exposed to the appeal to reason advert and asked how informative they perceived the advert to be. 1 = “completely uninformative”; 5 = “completely informative”. Descriptive statistics indicate Mdn = 4, majority of the participants 23 (53.5%) revealed that they considered the advert informative, compared to 20 (46.5%), (M = 1.47, SD = .50). See note 3.
Lastly participants were exposed to the appeal to emotion advert and were asked if they perceived the advert as emotional on a scale from 1 to 5, 1 =
“completely unemotional”; 5 = “completely emotional”. Descriptive statistics indicate, Mdn = 5, majority of the participants 25 (58.1%) indicated that the advert was emotional compared to 18 (41.9%) that didn’t (M= 1.41, SD = .50). See note 4.
References
Aaker, J. L., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Non-profits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 224–237 Andrews, J. C. (1989). The dimensionality of beliefs toward advertising in general. Journal of
Andrews, J.R. (1989). Wise Skepticism: On the Education of a Young Critic. Communication Education, 38(3), 178–83.
Bae, M. (2018). Overcoming skepticism toward cause-related marketing claims: the role of Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychology. New York: Meredith.
Barbagallo, P. (2020). Overcoming skepticism is crucial in reaching black donors. Retrieved from
https://www.nonprofitpro.com/article/overcoming-skepticism-crucial-reaching-black-donors-31809/all/
Friestad, M., & Wright. G. (1994). Adolescent skepticism toward TV advertising and knowledge of advertiser tactics. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 165-1 75.
Brown, N., & Deegan, C. (1998). The public disclosure of environmental performance
information—A dual test of media agency setting theory and legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 29(1), 21–42.
Brown, N., & Deegan, C. (1998). The Public Disclosure of Environmental Performance Information-a Dual Test of Media Agenda Setting Theory and Legitimacy Theory. Accounting and Business Research, 29(1), 21–41.
Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers' use of per- suasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of
Consumer Research, 27, 69-83.
Chang, C. T. (2008). To donated or not to donate? Product characteristics and framing effects of cause related marketing on consumer purchase behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 25(12), 1089 – 1110.
Chang, C.T. (2011). Guilt appeals in cause-related marketing: the subversive roles of product type and donation magnitude. International Journal of Advertising, 30(4), 587-616.
Cho, J. (2006). The mechanism of trust and distrust formation and their relational outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 82(1), 25-35.
CONE. (2014). Cone Communications Social Impact Study: The Next Cause Evolution, Cone Communications, Boston, MA, available at: www.conecomm.com/research-blog/2013cone-communications-social-impact-study.
Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (1998). Understanding communication theory. The communicative forces for human action.
Eisend, M. (2006). Two – sided advertising: A meta - analysis. Psychology & Marketing, 24(7), 615-640.
Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb. D.J. (2000). Charitable programs and the retailer: Do they mix? Journal of Retailing, 76, 393-406.
Fransen, M. L., Verlegh, P. W., Kirmani, A., & Smit, E. G. (2015). A typology of consumer strategies for resisting advertising, and a review of mechanisms for countering them. International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 6-16.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1-31.
Galan-Ladero, M., Galera-Casquet, C., & Wymer, W. (2013). Attitudes towards cause-related marketing: determinants of satisfaction and loyalty. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 10(3), 253–269.
IEG Sponsorship Report. (2016). As sponsorship borders fall, spending rises. Retrieved from http://www.sponsorship.com/iegsr/2016/01/05/New-Year-To-Be-One-Of-Growth.aspxketing, 21(3), 255–270.
Insights in Marketing. (2014). Consumer skepticism of advertising and marketing. Retrieved from www.insightsinmarketing.com/media/1064/consumer_skepticism_of_advertising_nd_market ing.
Jones, E. E. (1979). How Do People Perceive the Causes of Behavior? Experiments Based on Attribution Theory Offer Some Insights into How Actors and Observers Differ in Viewing the Causal Structure of Their Social World. American Scientist, 64(3), 300–305.
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In Leonard Berkowitz (Ed.)., Advances in experimental social psychology,2, 220-266.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska symposium on motivation, 15(230), 19-2-240.
Kim, S.J., & Hancock, J.T., (2017). How Advertorials Deactivate Advertising Schema: MTurk-Based Experiments to Examine Persuasion Tactics and Outcomes in Health Advertisements. Communication Research, 44(7), 1019–1045
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Krol, C. (1996). Consumers note marketers’ good causes: Roper. Advertising Age, 67(46), 51-2. Lafferty, B.A. (2007). The relevance of fit in a cause-brand alliance when consumers evaluate
corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 447-453.
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: a test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5–18.
Lindblom, C. (1994). The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. Paper presented at the critical perspectives on accounting conference, New York.
Mackenzie, S.B., & Lutz, R.J. (1989). An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 48–65.
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.
Matthews, M., Peters, C., & Lawson, S. (2017). An Exploratory Investigation of Hospice
Marketing: How Are Palliative Care Providers Marketing Their Services? Health Marketing Quarterly, 34(1),48–61.
Moyo, D. (2009) Dead aid: Why aid is not working and how there is a better way for Africa.Vancouver: Douglas & Mcintyre.
Newell, S. J., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2001). The Development of a Scale to Measure Perceived Corporate Credibility. Journal of Business Research, 52(3), 235–247.
Nielsen. (2014). , Doing Well by Doing Good. , Nielsen, New York, NY. Retrieved from:
www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/ 2014/doing-well-by-doing-good.html (accessed 3 July 2015).
Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E.R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159-186.
Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E.R., & MacLachlan, D.L. (2005). Ad skepticism: the consequences of disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 7-17.
Perks, K., Farache, F., Shukla, P., & Berry, A. (2013). Communicating responsibility-practicing irresponsibility in CSR advertisements. Journal Of Business Research, 66(10), 1881-1888. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1984). The Effects of Involvement on Responses to Argument
Quantity and Quality: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69–81.
Pollay, R.W., & Mittal, B. (1993). Here’s the beef: factors, determinants, and segments in consumer criticism of advertising.”, Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 99-114.
Puto, C., & Wells. W. (1984). Informational and Transformational Advertising: The Differential Effects of Time. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 572-576.
Runté, M., Basil, D. Z., & Deshpande, S. (2009). Cause-related marketing from the nonprofit’s perspective: classifying goals and experienced outcomes. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 82(3), 108 – 115
Seitanidi, M.M., & Ryan, A. (2007). A critical review of forms of corporate community involvement: from philanthropy to partnerships. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(3), 247-266.
Seo, Y., Kim, J., Choi, Y., & Li, X. (2019). In “likes” we trust: likes, disclosures and firm-serving motives on social media. European Journal of Marketing, 53(10), 2173-2192.
Singh, S., Kristensen, L., & Villaseñor, E. (2009). Overcoming skepticism towards cause related claims: the case of Norway. International Marketing Review, 26(3), 312-326.
UNESCO. (2020). South Sudan. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/en/country/ss
Varadarajan, P.R., & and Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: a co-alignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52 (3), 58-74.
Webb, D.J., & and Mohr, L.A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to cause-related
marketing: from skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17(2), 226-38.
Werder, K. (2008). The Effect of Doing Good: An Experimental Analysis of the Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives on Beliefs, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intention. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 2(2), 15–135.
Wiebe, J., Basil, D., & Runté, M. (2016). Psychological distance and perceived consumer effectiveness in a cause-related marketing context. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 14(2), 197-215.
Wymer, W.W., & Samu, S. (2003). Dimensions of business and nonprofit collaborative relationships. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 11(1), 3–22.
Wymer, W. W., & Sargeant, A. (2006). Insights from a review of the literature on cause marketing. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 3(1), 9–21.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341-352.
Appendix A: Stimuli
2. Public serving only claim reason
3. Combined public serving and firm serving; emotional appeal
Appendix B
Control variables and dependent variables scales
1. General ad skepticism scale (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998)
- We can depend on getting the truth in most advertising - Advertisings aim is to inform the consumer
- I believe advertising is informative - Advertising is generally truthful
- Advertising is a reliable source of information about the quality and performance of products
- Advertising is truth well told
- In general, advertising presents a true picture of the product being advertised
- I feel I’ve been accurately informed after viewing most advertisement - Most advertisements provide consumers with essential information
2. Cause Involvement (Zaichkowsky, 1985)
- The cause is important to me - The cause means nothing to me
- The cause is personally relevant to me - The cause is of no great concern to me - The cause doesn’t matter a great deal to me
-
3. Situational skepticism (Forehand & Grier, 2003)
- How truthful do you think the claim is? - How credible do you think the claim is?
- How skeptical are you about the truth of this claim?
4. Brand credibility (Newell & Goldsmiths, 2001)
- The brand has a great amount of experience - The brand is skilled in what they do
- The brand has great expertise - I trust the brand
- The brand is honest
5. Purchase intention (MacKenzie and Lutz (1989).
- How likely is it for you to purchase the product? - How possible is it for you to purchase the product? - How probable is it for you to purchase the product?
Appendix C Qualtrics questionnaire
_Keo thesis_overcoming skepticism
Start of Block: Default Question Block
Factsheet Welcome to my experiment! With this letter, I would like to invite you to
participate in a research study to be conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School of Communications, a part of the University of Amsterdam. The title of the study for
which I am requesting your co-operation is “Advertising Evaluations”. In the online survey,
an advert will be presented to you and a series of questions will follow thereafter, in which I would kindly ask you to complete. The survey will take less than 5 MINUTES to
