• No results found

CSR dialogue on social media : a study about how dialogue influences consumers’ attitude towards the company, through consumers’ skepticism towards the CSR message

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "CSR dialogue on social media : a study about how dialogue influences consumers’ attitude towards the company, through consumers’ skepticism towards the CSR message"

Copied!
45
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

CSR dialogue on social media

A study about how dialogue influences consumers’ attitude towards the

company, through consumers’ skepticism towards the CSR message.

Graduate School of Communication University of Amsterdam

MSc Corporate Communication

Submitted by Sophie van Overeem 30th of June 2017

Student number: 10166130

Supervisor: Dhr. Dr. J.W Boumans Words: 6565

(2)

Abstract

Social media make it possible for companies to communicate their CSR initiatives in an instant interactive way. They provide platform for dialogue about CSR between the company and its stakeholders. Due to dialogue, organizations can learn from their consumers,

participate in the social system, make better decisions, and adjust their CSR activities to fulfill stakeholders’ expectations (Kent & Taylor, 2016). This study contributes to the field of dialogue on social media as it aims to find out how different levels of dialogue influence consumers’ attitude towards the company, and if this relationship is mediated by consumers’ skepticism towards the CSR message. An online experiment with questionnaire was

conducted and 190 Dutch individuals between 16-66 years old participated in this study. The results show that there was no direct significant relationship between the three levels of dialogue, i.e. no interaction, a short reply and dialogue, and consumers’ attitude towards the company. In addition, no significant prove was found for the expectation that consumers’ skepticism would mediate this relationship. This study contributes to and extends scientific knowledge, for the reason that the different levels of dialogue in their relationship to consumers’ attitude and their skepticism are not studied before. Together with existing literature it gives companies insight in how to manage their corporate social network after sharing their CSR contributions on Facebook.

(3)

Introduction

Over the past few years more and more companies integrated Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) principles into their corporate strategic policies and business processes. It has been recognised as a theoretical base for the development of many different management models (Gao & Zhang, 2006). The mainstream view on CSR, which regards CSR as a tool that can be created and controlled by a company to achieve corporate objectives (Schultz, Castelló, & Morsing, 2013), shifted on to the idea that the organization is part of a bigger spectrum. The organization is part of a social system in which it has to maintain relationships with other stakeholders and that comes with risk, uncertainty and ambiguity (Kent & Taylor, 2016). Therefore, fulfilling stakeholders’ expectations about a company’s CSR participation is a complex process. Many people are in doubt about the extent to which companies are sincere about their corporate social involvement (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). A lot of companies invest in communicating their economic, social and environmental performances through their websites and promising annual reports (Porter, Kramer & Zadek, 2007). On the contrary, media report about incidents of socially irresponsible company behavior (e.g. the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico) (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). This conflicting information leads to the fact that consumers have trouble distinguish social responsible companies from the social irresponsible ones (Bernstein, 2009; Parguel, Benoit-Moreau, & Larceneux, 2011), and consumers become skeptical towards their real corporate social involvement (Forehand & Grier, 2003; Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009).

Social media offer companies a variety of opportunities to communicate their CSR initiatives. Additionally, they provide a platform for dialogue since people can directly respond to CSR initiatives. Due to the interactive nature of social media one-way communication is forever in our past. Communication on social media is considered as transparent and open (Korschun & Du, 2013). The concept of dialogue is based on the theory

(4)

of Grunig and Hunt (1984) about two-way communication. When implementing two-way symmetrical communication the organization tries to negotiate with the public and adjust the relationship between the organization and the public (Grunig and Hunt, 1992). The

organization wants to reach mutual understanding and respect. Dialogue with consumers on social media can create stronger organization-public relationships as the focus is shifting to communication and relationships, rather than persuasive marketing (Kent & Taylor, 2016). Due to dialogue, organizations can learn from their consumers, participate in the social system, make better decisions, and adjust their CSR activities to fulfill stakeholders’ expectations (Kent & Taylor, 2016). While it has been demonstrated that dialogue can enhance trust and cooperation with stakeholders (Gao & Zhang, 2006), literature has not reached its full potential on how dialogue with consumers on social media influences consumers’ skepticism towards a company’s CSR initiatives. This lack is unfortunate, because the attentiveness in negative consumer responses to corporate actions is quickly growing (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). Negative information in general gets more attention than positive information (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001), especially on social media where all communication is open and transparent.

CSR Communication can induce two opposing reactions: skepticism and trust. As mentioned before, consumers become skeptical when they perceive the initiatives of a company as self-centered (Elving, 2013), and on the other hand a more trusting relationship arises when they perceive the initiatives as sincere (Vlachos, Tsamakos, Vrechopoulos & Avramidis, 2009). Prior research has shown that there is a positive relationship between a company’s CSR initiatives and the attitude of consumers towards the company and its

products (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Creyer & Ross, 1997; Ellen, Mohr, & Webb, 2000). Little is known about how dialogue on social media influences consumers’ attitude towards a

(5)

the public, but does this influence consumers’ attitudes positively? The public wants to participate in CSR and they want proof that their CSR participation is acted upon (Lauritsen & Perks, 2015). Lauritsen and Perks (2015) concluded that the more a company shows that they take the opinions of their consumers into consideration, the more positive the consumers will be towards the company’s CSR commitment, corporate brand image and reputation.

This study will find out if this relationship between dialogue on social media and consumers’ attitude towards the company is mediated by consumers’ skepticism towards the CSR message. Eberle, Berens and Li (2013) found that interactive communication leads to better corporate reputation than no interactive communication, mediated by how credible the CSR message is perceived by consumers. With companies communicating their CSR

initiatives through social media all communication is interactive. That’s why this study will go a step further with examining different levels of dialogue that can occur on social media and their influence on consumer’s attitude towards the company, mediated by consumers’ skepticism. This is relevant because since social media are becoming increasingly important for organizations, the need for organizations to manage their social media and relationships as part of their strategic business plan grows (Kesavan, Bernacchi & Mascarenhas, 2013). Besides, when organizations don’t engage in dialogue with their consumers on social media, other unofficial pages or users can take on this role and this can affect the organizations’ reputation negatively (Korschun & Du, 2013).

The present study will, therefore, provide a way forward to show what dialogue on social media does. It will extend academic and organizational knowledge on how dialogue about CSR on social media influences consumers’ skepticism, and to what extent this affects consumers’ attitude towards the company. This results in the following research question:

(6)

To what extent does dialogue about Corporate Social Responsibility on social media affect the attitude towards the brand, mediated by skepticism towards the CSR message?

Theoretical Framework Interactive CSR communication

Nowadays, companies desire for engagement with the public and they make this happen by using different kinds of social media (Cosimato & Troisi, 2015). Facebook is the most popular and leading social media site with more than 1.23 billion people using the social network every day, and 1.15 billion logging in from mobile devices each day (Popper & Erlick; 2017). Social media have changed the way society shares information and builds relationships. They also changed the public from consumers that passively received information to consumers that can create and transmit information themselves (Fooks, Gilmore, Collin, Holden, & Lee, 2013). Social media make it possible for the public to share their opinions and expectations about the company and its initiatives (Cho, Furey & Mohr, 2017). As a consequence, the communication patterns changed from traditional one-to-one or one-to-many communication to any-to-any and many-to-many communication (Capriotti, 2011). Social media make it possible to reach stakeholders and to interact with them. This makes social media very attractive for companies (Eberle, Berens, & Li, 2013; Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Kent & Taylor, 1998; Yang & Lim, 2009). Facebook, with its possibility to comment on content that the company provides, is the definition of interactive

communication. Taking advantage of interactive media to communicate about a companies’ CSR is considered to be effective for building organization-public relationships (Capriotti & Moreno, 2007; Esrock & Leichty, 1998; Fieseler, Fleck, & Meckel, 2010).

Eberle, Berens, and Li (2013) found that interactive CSR communication influences corporate reputation and word-of-mouth intentions, through message credibility and feelings

(7)

of identification. Additionally, Lauritsen and Perks (2015) found that interactive CSR communication functions as an effective method to improve consumers’ emotional brand value, knowledge and memory of CSR. The researchers stated that these outcomes had the potential to generate a more positive perception towards brand image and reputation. Kim, Nam and Kang (2010) showed that 71% of the Fortune Global 500 firms dedicated an independent section of their website to CSR and that 75% of these sections offered the

possibility for visitors to respond to the information provided. When companies communicate their CSR initiatives via Facebook visitors have a possibility of 100% to respond to the

information provided because of the interactive nature of Facebook. Yet, communicating CSR on Facebook is challenging. Companies need to deal with various expectations of different stakeholders and this often leads to conflict (Carroll, 1991; Porter & Kramer, 2002). However, scientists showed that there are positive effects of interactive media on the

relationship between organizations and the public, on brand- and corporate attitudes, and on publics’ support (Kelleher, 2009;Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Ko, Cho, & Roberts, 2005).

Public responding to Facebook-posts about CSR, which is visible for everyone, implies that CSR isn’t something only the company creates. The company and the public create CSR together. The public wants to participate in CSR and people more and more want proof that their CSR participation is acted upon (Lauritsen and Perks, 2015). Lauritsen and Perks (2015) found that the more a company shows that it takes the opinions of their consumers into consideration, the more positive consumers will be towards its CSR

commitment, corporate brand image and reputation. This means that communication not only influences the opinions of the public and other stakeholders, but also the opinions and

behavior of the company (Eberle, Berens, & Li, 2013). Online dialogue can help to reach this mutual understanding and respect.

(8)

Dialogue on Facebook

The concept of dialogue is originated in the theory of two-way communication (Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Grunig and Hunt (1984) introduced the four models of Public Relations. Within that model, they stated that there are two different ways of two-way communication, namely symmetrical and asymmetrical communication. Where two-way asymmetrical communication uses persuasion and manipulation to influence the public to behave as the organization

desires, two-way symmetrical communication uses communication to negotiate with

stakeholders (Grunig & Hunt, 1992). With symmetrical communication the organization tries to adjust the relationship between the organization and the public, wants to resolve conflict and reach reciprocal understanding and respect. An important aspect is that the organization is not the only one who ‘speaks’, but it also has to listen to its stakeholders to maintain their relationship.

Kent and Taylor (2016) introduced a new view on online CSR communication via social media: Homo Dialogicus. They state that companies need to move away from the Homo

Economicus (i.e. CSR only exists to make money for investors), and shift the attention to

dialogue and relationship building. Kloppers (2015) called it the difference between talking about CSR and talking within CSR. Dialogue is a skill that acknowledges the presence of other human beings. “Effective dialogue requires empathy, patience, risk, sympathy, trust, and a willingness to be changed, or admit when one is wrong” (Kent and Taylor, 2016). This means that when a company communicates CSR it can have beliefs and viewpoints, but it also has listen to new ideas and has to be willing to make changes. In addition, Schultz, Castello and Morsing (2013) introduced the communicative view on CSR. They stated that CSR originates from communication. Companies have to debate with their stakeholders about social norms and expectations related to corporate social responsibilities. Different stakeholders negotiate knowledge about the meaning and expectations of corporate

(9)

responsibility (Caruana & Crane, 2008). Social media are capable of engaging companies with the public, but consumers reading and commenting on corporate information on Facebook and other social media does not constitute dialogue (Taylor & Kent, 2014).

This study will focus on three different levels of interactive CSR communication, namely no interaction, a short reply and dialogue, and their influence on consumers’ attitude towards the company. It is expected that dialogue with consumers will have stronger positive effect on consumers’ attitude towards the company than no interaction and a short reply, since

consumers want evidence that their participation and expectation is acted upon (Lauritsen & Perks, 2015). Additionally, dialogue on Facebook embodies transparency and builds solid relationships grounded in trust (Waddock & Googins, 2011), which possibly has a positive influence on consumers’ attitude. According to prior research, it is expected that dialogue has a more positive influence than no interaction, but the present research will find out to what extent the response of the company can be short or has to be open for dialogue. On Facebook you can see different approaches in webcare; some companies answer a consumers’ critical note with a short reply (e.g. Thank you for your feedback), and other companies make the response more personal, clarify their position and ask questions about how the consumer thinks it should be improved. It is interesting for companies to know what approach leads to a stronger positive influence on consumers’ attitude towards the company.

H1a: A short reply from a company on the comments of the consumers has stronger positive

influence on consumers’ attitude towards the company than no interaction.

H1b: Dialogue between a company and its consumers on Facebook has stronger positive

(10)

Skepticism towards the CSR message as a mediator

Consumers are often skeptical about companies’ CSR and their communications (Elving, 2013). In general, skepticism refers to a person who tends to doubt, disbelieve and question (Boush, Friestad, & Rose, 1994; Forehand & Grier, 2003). Stakeholders can become leery of a company’s CSR motives when they promote it too aggressively (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010). A skeptic public believes that a company only does CSR to gain a favorable position and will act only in self-interest (i.e. in terms of profit) and not for the good of the world (Elving, 2013). A consumer is likely to be skeptical when he or she thinks that the company only communicates about its CSR to improve their corporate image. Stakeholders will accuse a company of green washing or window dressing when the motives (i.e. intrinsic or extrinsic) of the company are doubtful (Forehand & Grier, 2003; Yoon, Gurhan-Canli & Schwarz, 2006). Research focused on how to overcome skepticism towards CSR (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010; Elving, 2013). Elving (2013) found that the lowest levels of skepticism were found when the company had a good reputation and when there was a good fit between the company and the CSR domain.

The present study will find out whether online dialogue about CSR on Facebook influences consumers’ skepticism towards CSR. Eberle, Berens and Li (2013) found that individuals find a company’s message more credible when they perceive more online interactivity from the company. Presumably, when consumers perceive a CSR message as credible, they are less skeptical towards the message. It is expected that the perceived interactivity is highest with dialogue leading to lower skepticism, and lowest with no interaction leading to higher skepticism. Communication via social media is perceived open and transparent (Korschun & Du, 2013). Consequently, the interaction between the company and the stakeholders improves (Korschun & Du, 2013; Men & Tsai, 2015), and this leads to improvement of dialogue and relationships between the company and its stakeholders

(11)

(Cosimato & Troisi, 2015; Trainor, Andzulis, Rapp & Agnihotri, 2015). Therefore, it is expected that with more dialogue on Facebook, consumer skepticism towards CSR decreases because consumers can see that the company tries to negotiate and reach mutual

understanding with the public.

H2a: A short reply from a company on the comments of the consumers causes less skepticism

towards the CSR message than no interaction.

H2b: Dialogue between a company and its consumers on Facebook causes less skepticism

towards the CSR message than a short reply.

The motives of a company as interpreted by consumers have an effect on the attitude towards the company and also on their intent to purchase the company’s products and services

(Becker-Olsen, Cudmore & Hill, 2006). Research has shown that consumers who notice ambiguity in the company’s motives have more skepticism and thus leads to a more negative attitude towards the company and its CSR initiatives (Forehand & Grier, 2003; Menon & Kahn, 2003). Therefore, it is expected that skepticism towards the CSR message mediates the relationship between the level of dialogue on Facebook and the consumers’ attitude towards the company.

H3a: Less skepticism towards the CSR message causes a more positive consumers’ attitude

towards the company.

H3b: The level of dialogue affect consumer’s attitude towards the brand, mediated by

(12)

Figure 1 Conceptual model H3b H2a+b H3a H1a+b Methodology Design

To test the proposed hypotheses an empirical study was conducted. This study was outlined as a 3 (level of dialogue) x 1 (CSR campaign) between subjects design (see Table 1). Factor ‘level of dialogue’ consisted of three levels, namely no interaction, only a reply and dialogue. In total there were three different conditions.

Table 1 Experimental design T1 T2 R Xa O1 Condition A R Xb O2 Condition B R Xc O3 Condition C Level of dialogue on Facebook Attitude towards company Skepticism towards CSR

(13)

Sample

In total 317 participants engaged in this experiment, but only 190 individuals (N = 190) actually finished the research (response rate = 59.94%). The participants were between 16 and 66 years old with an average of 30,5 years old (SD = 12.32). The sample consisted of 74,7% male (N = 142) and 25,3% female (N = 48). Most participants were higher educated with HBO, WO Bachelor and WO Master containing 73,7% of all participants (N = 140). Based on a 5-point Likert scale, the participants found CSR and care for the environment very

important (M = 4.24; SD = .61). Participants who scored low on this scale don’t care about CSR and the environment at all and participants who scored high care a lot about CSR and the environment. The online experiment was conducted in May 2017 and it was online for 15 days. Due to this short research period, a convenience sample was used. Subjects were solicited via social media and a selected group via direct mailing. Besides, a snowball sample was used, because the acquaintances were asked to share the link to the experiment on their own Facebook-page.

The participants got randomly assigned to one of the three conditions. To make sure every condition within this experiment had the same characteristics, randomization was applied. To check whether this random assignment of individuals to conditions was successful two tests were conducted. First, a Chi-square with gender as dependent variable and the conditions as independent variable was conducted. The results showed that the randomization was successful for gender, X2(2) = 2.14, p = .343. Second, an ANOVA was conducted with age and education level as dependent variables and the conditions as independent variable. The results showed that the randomization for age, F(2,189) = .17, p = .053, and education level, F(2,189) = .17, p = .848, was successful.

(14)

Procedure

The Facebook post and e-mail provided a link leading to experiment. After the participants read and accepted informed consent, they were given the task of reading a CSR campaign of ‘Delicioso tortilla chips’ and the comments of five consumers underneath the post. The experiment was conducted entirely online and the participants could complete the study from any computer or mobile device. The 190 participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions. The differences between these conditions will be explained later on. After being exposed to one of the conditions, the participants had to answer questions that measured the dependent variables of the study and to collect demographic variables. The survey ended with a manipulation check and the participants were thanked for their participation.

Manipulation

As shown in Appendix II, one CSR campaign was created in a Facebook template. Each of the three Facebook-pages displayed the same campaign and followed the same design. Only the level of dialogue between the company and its consumers was manipulated. This CSR campaign was for a fictitious company to avoid any potential bias from previous experiences and reputation. In addition, tortilla chips was selected as the online product in the campaign as it is a (unisex) product that all consumers are familiar with. The manipulated levels of

dialogue were offered increasingly. With this approach, differences between the three conditions could be directly assigned to the different levels of dialogue. The first condition only saw the comments of the consumers and no further interaction with the company (N = 74). The second condition saw the comments of the consumers with a short reply from the company, mostly with ‘thank you for you message/feedback/compliment’ (N = 45). The last condition saw the comments with an extensive reply from the company and further dialogue in which the company really shows that they take the comments of the consumers into

(15)

consideration (N = 71). Logically, the three different conditions were increasing in size and the amount of text that the participant had to read. Important to note is that the participants had no direct interaction with the company within this experiment. They were asked to view the comments of other consumers and the interaction with the company that followed.

Measurements

Skepticism towards CSR message

Skepticism towards CSR message was assessed using four items of Skarmeas and Leonidou (2013), and four items of Yoon, Gürhan-Canli and Schwarz (2006) (see Appendix I, Q10). Using a 5-point Likert scale, the items measured how much people (dis)agreed with

statements as “I think this company is a corporate social responsible company”, “I think this

company is concerned with improving the well-being of the environment”, and “I think this company has real concerns for the protection of the environment”. Two items were reversed

to make sure the value of the scale was the same for every item, namely “I think this company

tries to create a good image of itself” and “I think this company tries to improve its existing image”. An exploratory factor analysis indicated that the scale had two components with

Eigenvalue above 1.00. The analysis showed that the two reversed items formed their own scale and they are, therefore, omitted from further analyses. With the remaining six items a new scale was created, explaining 63.49% of the variance. The scale also proved reliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s Alpha of .88 (M = 4.42, SD = .77). This Alpha would not be higher if an item would be deleted. Participants who score low (0 = fully disagree) on the skepticism scale are very skeptical and participants who score high on this scale (5 = fully agree) are not skeptical at all towards the CSR message.

For hypothesis 3a the distinction is made between consumers who are less skeptical towards the CSR message and those who are more skeptical towards the CSR message to

(16)

measure the difference between those two groups in terms of their attitude towards the

company. Therefore, a dummy variable is created based on the mean (M = 3.5) of the scale (0 = less skeptical and 1 = more skeptical).

Attitude towards company

The consumers’ attitude towards the company was assessed using six items of Yang, Asaad and Dwivedi (2017), and two items of He, Chen and Alden (2016) (see Appendix I, Q8). Using a 5-point Likert scale, the items measured how much people (dis)agreed with

statements as “I have positive feelings towards the brand Delicioso”, “I can identify myself

with the brand Delicioso”, “I will tend to but the brand Deliciso”, “I think this brand is good”, and “I like this brand”. An exploratory factor analysis indicated that the scale was

unidimensional (only one component with Eigenvalue above 1.00), explaining 66.10% of the variance in the eight original items. The eight-item scale also proved reliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s Alpha of .93 (M = 4.97, SD = 1.11). This Alpha would not be higher if one item would be deleted. Participants who score low (0 = fully disagree) on the attitude towards company scale have a very bad attitude towards the company Delicioso and participants who score high on this scale (5 = fully agree) have a very positive attitude towards the company.

Pilottest

Prior to the final online experiment, a short trial was conducted to check whether the survey, the manipulation material and the procedure of the experiment worked correctly. In total 19 participants managed to do this pilottest (N = 19). The collected data indicated that the question for the manipulation check was often misunderstood as there was no significant difference between the three different levels of dialogue. Therefore, after consultation with the participants, this question has been made clearer and more direct.

(17)

Results Manipulation check

To check whether the manipulation of the independent variable ‘level of dialogue’ was successful the questionnaire ended with the question: “how did the company respond to the

comments of the consumers?” They could answer this question with: “the company was not open for dialogue, the company responded shortly, or the company was open for dialogue”.

As shown in table 2, 59 of the participants gave the wrong answer. However, a Chi-square demonstrated that there was a significant difference between the three different levels (no interaction, a reply and dialogue) and that the manipulation for level of dialogue was successful, X2(4) = 119.67, p < .000, with Cramer’s V = .56. The relation between the conditions and the answers to the manipulation check is moderately strong.

Table 2

Manipulation check ‘level of dialogue’

Condition

Item No interaction A reply Dialogue Total “The company was not

open for dialogue” 43 12 1 56

“The company

responded shortly” 22 27 9 58

“The company was open

for dialogue” 9 6 61 76

(18)

Level of dialogue on consumers’ attitude towards the company

Hypothesis 1a proposed that viewing a reply from a company on the comments of the consumers has a more positive influence on consumers’ attitude towards the company than viewing no interaction. In addition, hypothesis 1b proposed that viewing dialogue between consumers and the company has a more positive influence on consumers’ attitude towards the company than viewing only a reply. An ANOVA with level of dialogue as independent variable and attitude towards the company as dependent variable indicated that the dialogue condition (M = 3.25; SD = .66), the reply condition (M = 3.00; SD = .77), and those exposed to no interaction (M = 3.03; SD = .66) did not significantly differ from each other, F(2,189) = 2.59, p = .078, in their relation to attitude towards the company. This means that viewing a reply will not lead to a more positive attitude towards the company than viewing no

interaction, and viewing dialogue will not lead to a more positive attitude towards the company than viewing a reply. Therefore, hypotheses 1a and 1b are rejected.

Level of dialogue on consumers’ skepticism towards CSR message

Hypothesis 2a proposed that viewing a reply from a company on the comments of the

consumers causes less skepticism towards the CSR message than no interaction. Additionally, hypothesis 2b proposed that viewing dialogue between consumers and the company causes less skepticism towards the CSR message than only a reply. An ANOVA with level of

dialogue as independent variable and skepticism towards CSR message as dependent variable indicated that the dialogue condition (M = 3.80; SD = .68), viewing a reply (M = 3.56; SD = .66), and those exposed to no interaction (M = 3.66; SD = .57) did not significantly differ from each other, F(2,189) = 2.15, p = .120, in their relation to skepticism towards the CSR message. This means that viewing dialogue or a reply will not lead to less skepticism towards the CSR message than viewing no interaction. Therefore, hypotheses 2a and 2b are rejected.

(19)

Skepticism on consumers’ attitude towards the company

Hypothesis 3a proposed that less skepticism towards the CSR message causes a more positive consumers’ attitude towards the company. An independent samples t-test with skepticism (dummy variable) as independent variable and attitude towards the company as dependent variable indicated that less skepticism (M = 3.38; SD = .57) did significantly differ from those with more skepticism (M = 2.60; SD = .63), t(188) = -8.697, p < .000, in their relation to attitude towards the company. This means that people with less skepticism towards the CSR message have a more positive attitude towards the company than people with more

skepticism. Therefore, hypothesis 3a is supported.

Mediation

Hypothesis 3b proposed that skepticism towards the CSR message mediates the effect of the level of dialogue on attitude towards the company. To measure this hypothesis Hayes’ PROCESS model is used. A regression analysis was conducted with the level of dialogue as independent variable, the attitude towards the company as dependent variable, and skepticism towards the CSR message as mediator. The analysis indicated that the direct relationship between the level of dialogue and the attitude towards the CSR message (X  Y, see Figure 2) is not significant, F(1,188) = 58.62, p = .155.Besides, it indicated that the relationship between the level of dialogue and skepticism towards the CSR message either (X M) is not significant, F(1,188) = 1.70, p = .194. However, the relationship between skepticism towards the CSR message and the attitude towards the company (M  Y) is significant, F(1,188) = 58.62, p < .000. This implies that the level of skepticism is an indicator for consumers’ attitude towards the company. The more skeptical consumers are, the more negative their attitude towards the company is and the other way around. 38,5% of the variance in the attitude towards the CSR message was accounted by the predictors (R2 = .385). At last, the

(20)

analysis indicated that the indirect coefficient was not significant, b = -.897, SE = 1.030, 95% CI = -3.134, 1.004. This means that there is no relationship between the level of dialogue and the attitude towards the company, and that this effect is not mediated by skepticism towards the CSR message. However, there is a direct relationship between skepticism towards the CSR message and the attitude towards the company. Hypothesis 3b is rejected.

Figure 2

Conceptual model with coefficients * .069 * .659 M * .065 X Y * = Regression coefficients Discussion

This study aimed to find out if companies should use dialogue on social media in order to influence consumers’ attitude towards the company, and if this relationship is mediated by consumers’ skepticism towards the CSR message. First, the results of this study will be discussed based on existing literature. Later on, the limitations and opportunities for future research are presented and the paper ends with a concluding summary.

Level of dialogue on Facebook Attitude towards company Skepticism towards CSR

(21)

In conflict with Waddock and Googins (2011), who suggested that dialogue on Facebook embodies transparency and builds solid relationships between the company and its consumers grounded in trust, this study has demonstrated that there is no statistical difference between the three different levels of dialogue in their relationship to consumers’ attitude towards the company. This outcome suggests that it doesn’t matter if a company is open for dialogue with its consumers or not; it will make no difference for the consumers’ attitude towards the company. This effect refutes previous research by Lauritsen and Perks (2015) that consumers want to have the feeling that their CSR participation is acted upon. Via dialogue the company shows that they take the opinion of its consumers into consideration and it can function as a bridge between consumers’ expectations and the meaning of the company about CSR (Curuana & Crane, 2008; Schultz, Castello & Morsing, 2013). However, these solid

relationships don’t influence the attitude of the consumers positively or negatively within this study. This could be explained by the fact that consumers don’t expect every company to react on the comments of all consumers. Especially for a brand that is new on the market, like Delicioso in this study. Webcare and dialogue on social media are a relatively new form of interactive communication (Kent and Taylor, 2016). Big brands have time and money to manage their social media very well, but for small brands it is presumable that managing social media is not one of their main activities. Maybe the fact that consumers can only respond to the CSR message on Facebook already gives them the feeling of the company taking their CSR participation into consideration, whether or not dialogue follows. Future research could, therefore, focus on testing differences in brand or company size. Another more technical explanation could be that the difference between the three approaches was not big enough to measure a clear distinction between the extents to which it has an influence on consumers’ attitude. Possibly because the ‘reply’ condition consisted of fewer individuals

(22)

than the other two conditions, also one of the limitations of the study, which are described later on.

Contrary to what was expected, the results show that the level of dialogue is not related to consumers’ skepticism towards the CSR message. Unlike research demonstrated, that the use of online dialogue would increase message credibility (Eberle, Berens & Li, 2011), enable open and transparent communication (Korschun & Du, 2013), and improve relationships between the company and its stakeholders (Cosimato & Troisi, 2015; Trainor, Andzulis, Rapp & Agnihotri, 2015), it does not result in less skeptical consumers. Hence, it can be concluded that there is no difference in to what extent consumers are skeptical when no interaction, a reply or dialogue on social media is used. A possible explanation for this might be that the CSR message used in this experiment wasn’t perceived as self-centered (Elving, 2013) and, therefore, the level of dialogue wouldn’t cause big differences in how skeptical consumers would be towards the CSR message. For future research, it would be interesting to see if for CSR messages that are perceived as less sincere or self-interested dialogue can help to reduce skepticism towards the CSR message. Another explanation, and also one of the limitations that will be explained later, is that most of the participants were higher educated. It can be assumed that when it comes to open and transparent

communication they know a company also benefits from CSR initiatives and, therefore, the company’s motives are not questioned whether or not dialogue is used (Lauritsen & Perks, 2015; Du et al., 2010).

In line with Becker-Olsen, Cudmore and Hill’s (2006) findings, the CSR initiatives as interpreted by individuals have an effect on the attitude towards the company. The results of this study corroborate prior research (Forehand & Grier, 2003; Menon & Kahn, 2003), which showed that consumers who have doubts about the clarity of the company’s motives have more skepticism and more negative attitudes towards the company and its CSR initiatives.

(23)

The present study found the same relationship. Nevertheless, the results show that skepticism doesn’t mediate the relationship between the level of dialogue and consumers’ attitude towards the company. After interpreting the results of the first two hypotheses this is actually already clear, as Baron and Kenny (1986) proposed that when significant results remain for two relationships the chances of finding a mediation effect are nearly zero. This means that for this study there was no significant direct effect for the level of dialogue on consumers’ attitude (X  Y, see Figure 2), and no significant effect for the level of dialogue on

consumers’ skepticism towards the CSR message (M  Y), which led to the conclusion that finding a mediation effect was not realistic.

Limitations and future research

This study has a few limitations that should be outlined to improve future research. First, as mentioned before, the three conditions that were created for this study were different in size in terms of amount of people. The ‘reply’ condition contained around 30 participants less than the other two conditions. This could be explained by the fact that not every participant finished the online experiment (response rate = 59.94%) and more individuals within the ‘reply’ condition dropped out. A consequence of this is that the results may be less valid, because differences in conditions might also expresses in differences in the outcome

variables. In addition, it can be assumed that the sample doesn’t give a good reflection of the population in reality. The main reason for this is that for the present study a convenience sample was used, which consisted of mainly higher educated people and all of them were Dutch. For future research, when more time and budget is available, it would be interesting to see if the same results will be found for another, more varied sample of society. This could be done with using a probability sample as with this method each population ingredient has a

(24)

known change of being selected for the sample. Besides, the experiment should be open until three different conditions with the same amount of people are created.

Second, to avoid any potential bias from previous experiences and reputation a fictitious company was used. However, it can be questioned to what extent the consumers’ attitude towards the company can be measured after seeing one campaign of a fictitious company. A statement like “I can identify myself with the brand Delicioso” can be difficult to assume the first time you are confronted with a brand. Future research could focus on other possible ways to measure consumers’ attitude towards the company. There are several of scales available to measure attitude. For this experiment it would be helpful to choose statements that are easier to answer when you are confronted with a brand for the first time. Another way to create more depth in the answers of the participants is to talk to them in focus groups. This way also their motivation for whether or not linking the brand can be measured. Furthermore, to verify the results future research could use existing companies.

At last, this study examined the effect of dialogue on Facebook by individuals looking at the interaction of other consumers with the company. For future research, it would be interesting to discover if comparative results will be found in an experimental setting where consumers can communicate with the company themselves. It is plausible that the feeling of trust, cooperation and relationship building enhanced by dialogue (Gao & Zhang, 2006; Kent & Taylor, 2016) is perceived as more meaningful when you experience the dialogue yourself.

Conclusion

When answering the research question of this study with the present findings combined with existing literature, it can be stated that companies should continue using the interactive opportunities of Facebook. Through Facebook consumers’ can respond to CSR initiatives and participate in CSR by sharing their opinions and expectations, which they find very important

(25)

(Lauritsen & Perks, 2015). However, no differences are found for the three different levels of dialogue. This means that companies should not focus too much on how they should go into dialogue with their consumers, as it doesn’t influence consumers’ attitude towards the

company. In addition, using dialogue on Facebook does not reduce consumers’ skepticism, at least, not when the consumer is higher educated and Dutch. For this group, skepticism doesn’t play a big role according to this study and doesn’t influence their attitude towards the

company. Next to these conclusions, I think that interaction with consumers on Facebook has to come naturally. It is hard to provide a clear method on how to manage social media for a company because every comment on a CSR post can be interpreted differently. When consumers have sincere questions, it is logical to provide a good answer for them. I assume that this will always help maintain relationships and the feeling of trust between the company and its consumers.

To sum up, the present study gives new insights into the effects of dialogue on Facebook and, therefore, contributes to the existing literature and academic knowledge. The study confirms that in the world we currently live in it takes two to tango; CSR is not

something only a company creates, but CSR is created together through communication with its stakeholders.

References

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of general psychology, 5(4), 323.

(26)

Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of business research, 59(1), 46-53.

Bernstein, D. (2009). Rhetoric and reputation: some thoughts on corporate dissonance.

Management Decision, 47(4), 603-615.

Boush, D. M., Friestad, M., & Rose, G. M. (1994). Adolescent skepticism toward TV

advertising and knowledge of advertiser tactics. Journal of consumer research, 21(1), 165-175.

Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. The Journal of Marketing, 68-84.

Capriotti, P. (2011). Communicating corporate social responsibility through the internet and social media. The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility. New York: Wiley.

Capriotti, P., & Moreno, A. (2007). Corporate citizenship and public relations: The importance and interactivity of social responsibility issues on corporate websites. Public relations review, 33(1), 84-91.

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business horizons, 34(4), 39-48.

Caruana, R., & Crane, A. (2008). Constructing consumer responsibility: Exploring the role of corporate communications. Organization Studies, 29(12), 1495-1519.

Cho, M., Furey, L. D., & Mohr, T. (2016). Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility on Social Media: Strategies, Stakeholders, and Public Engagement on Corporate Facebook. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 2329490616663708. Cosimato, S., & Troisi, O. (2015). Stakeholder Engagement and Social Media

(27)

Creyer, E. H., & Ross Jr, W. T. (1997). Tradeoffs between price and quality: How a value index affects preference formation. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 280-302. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate

social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of

Management Reviews, 12(1), 8-19.

Eberle, D., Berens, G., & Li, T. (2013). The impact of interactive corporate social responsibility communication on corporate reputation. Journal of Business

Ethics, 118(4), 731-746.

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.

Elving, W. J. (2013). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: the influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19(4), 277-292. doi: 10.1080/13527266.2011.631569

Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (1998). Social responsibility and corporate web pages: Self-presentation or agenda-setting?. Public relations review, 24(3), 305-319.

Fieseler, C., Fleck, M., & Meckel, M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in the blogosphere. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(4), 599-614.

Fooks, G., Gilmore, A., Collin, J., Holden, C., & Lee, K. (2013). The limits of corporate social responsibility: techniques of neutralization, stakeholder management and political CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 283-299.

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(3), 349-356.

(28)

Gao, S. S., & Zhang, J. J. (2006). Stakeholder engagement, social auditing and corporate sustainability. Business Process Management Journal, 12(6), 722-740. DOI: 10.1108/14637150610710891

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective organization.

Excellence in public relations and communication management, 65-90.

He, Y., Chen, Q., & Alden, D. L. (2016). Time will tell: managing post-purchase changes in brand attitude. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(6), 791-805.

Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of communication, 59(1), 172-188.

Kelleher, T., & Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice: Relational strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of Computer‐Mediated

Communication, 11(2), 395-414.

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public relations review, 24(3), 321-334.

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2016). From Homo Economicus to Homo dialogicus: Rethinking social media use in CSR communication. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 60-67. Kesavan, R., Bernacchi, M. D., & Mascarenhas, O. A. (2013). Word of mouse: CSR

communication and the social media. International Management Review, 9(1), 58. Kim, D., Nam, Y. and Kang, S. (2010). An analysis of corporate environmental responsibility

on the global corporate Web sites and their dialogic principles. Public Relations

Review, 36, 285-288.

Kloppers, E. M. (2015, September). A Theoretical Model for Communicating Within and About CSR. CSR Communication Conference 2015 (p. 48).

(29)

Ko, H., Cho, C. H., & Roberts, M. S. (2005). Internet uses and gratifications: A structural equation model of interactive advertising. Journal of advertising, 34(2), 57-70. Korschun, D., & S. Du. (2013). How virtual corporate social responsibility dialogs generate

value: A framework and propositions. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1494- 1504. DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.09.011

Lauritsen, B. D., & Perks, K. J. (2015). The influence of interactive, non-interactive, implicit and explicit CSR communication on young adults’ perception of UK supermarkets’ corporate brand image and reputation. Corporate Communications: An International

Journal, 20(2), 178-195. doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-09-2013-0065

Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. H. S. (2015). Infusing social media with humanity: Corporate character, public engagement, and relational outcomes. Public Relations

Review, 41(3), 395-403.

Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. (2003). Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic activities: when do they impact perception of sponsor brand?. Journal of consumer psychology, 13(3), 316-327.

Morsing, M. and Schultz, M. (2006), Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A

European Review, 15: 323–338. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x

Parguel, B., Benoit-Moreau, F., & Larceneux, F. (2011). How sustainability ratings might deter ‘greenwashing’: a closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of

Business Ethics, 102(1), 15-28.

Popper, B., & Erlick, N. (2017). Facebook is closing in on 2 billion monthly users. Retrieved from: https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/1/14474534/facebook-earnings-q4-fourth-quarter-2016

(30)

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard business review, 80(12), 56-68.

Porter, M. E., Kramer, M. R., & Zadek, S. (2007). Redefining corporate social responsibility. Harvard business review, 1, 2007.

Schultz, F., Castelló, I., & Morsing, M. (2013). The construction of corporate social responsibility in network societies: A communication view. Journal of business

ethics, 115(4), 681-692.

Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1831-1838.

Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384-398.

Trainor, K. J., Andzulis, J. M., Rapp, A., & Agnihotri, R. (2014). Social media technology usage and customer relationship performance: A capabilities-based examination of social CRM. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1201-1208.

Vanhamme, J., & Grobben, B. (2009). Too good to be true! the effectiveness of CSR history in countering negative publicity. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(S2), 273-283.

Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A. P., & Avramidis, P. K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 170-180.

Waddock, S., & Googins, B. K. (2011). The paradoxes of communicating corporate social responsibility. The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility, 23-43.

Yang, S. U., & Lim, J. S. (2009). The effects of blog-mediated public relations (BMPR) on relational trust. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(3), 341-359.

(31)

Yang, Y., Asaad, Y., & Dwivedi, Y. (2017). Examining the impact of gamification on intention of engagement and brand attitude in the marketing context. Computers in

Human Behavior, 73, 459-469.

Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of

(32)

Appendix I – Online Survey

Experiment CSR on Facebook Q1 Beste deelnemer,

Hierbij ben je uitgenodigd om deel te nemen aan een onderzoek dat wordt uitgevoerd onder verantwoordelijkheid van de Graduate School of Communication, onderdeel van de

Universiteit van Amsterdam. Het onderzoek waar wij jouw medewerking voor willen vragen is getiteld “Maatschappelijk Verantwoord Ondernemen (MVO) op Facebook”. Het onderzoek duurt ongeveer 5 minuten. Er zal worden gevraagd om kort naar een reclamecampagne te kijken. Het onderzoek wordt afgesloten met een korte vragenlijst.

Omdat dit onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd onder de verantwoordelijkheid van ASCoR, Universiteit van Amsterdam, heb je de garantie dat:

1) Je anonimiteit is gewaarborgd en dat jouw antwoorden of gegevens onder geen enkele voorwaarde aan derden worden verstrekt.

2) Je zonder opgaaf van redenen kunt weigeren mee te doen aan het onderzoek of jouw deelname voortijdig kunt afbreken.

3) Deelname aan het onderzoek geen noemenswaardige risico’s of ongemakken met zich meebrengt.

4) Je uiterlijk vijf maanden na afloop van het onderzoek de beschikking kunt krijgen over een onderzoeksrapportage waarin de algemene resultaten van het onderzoek worden toegelicht. Voor meer informatie over dit onderzoek en de uitnodiging tot deelname kun je te allen tijde contact opnemen met de projectleider Sophie van Overeem

(sophie.vanovereem@student.uva.nl).

Hopelijk ben je voldoende geïnformeerd en wij bedanken je bij voorbaat hartelijk voor jouw deelname aan dit onderzoek.

Q3 Wil je meedoen aan dit onderzoek?  Ja (1)

 Nee (2)

Condition: Nee Is Selected. Skip To: End of Survey.

Q4 Er zal nu worden gevraagd of je wilt kijken naar een campagne van Delicioso tortilla chips. Delicioso is een nieuw, opkomend merk. De zorg voor het milieu en duurzaamheid staan hoog in het vaandel bij het merk en zit dan ook diep verweven in hun business strategie. Dit is de reden dat het merk niet alleen biologische producten gebruikt, die vers van de boeren worden geleverd, maar ook gebruik maakt van verpakkingsmateriaal dat is gemaakt van biologisch afbreekbaar plastic.

Op de volgende pagina is er een Facebook post te zien over de campagne van Delicioso ‘build with green’ (oftewel: gemaakt van groen). Ook zijn de reacties van mensen te zien die op de campagne reageren. Voor het onderzoek wordt gevraagd om zowel de campagne als de reacties zorgvuldig te bekijken. Als je klaar bent met het bekijken van de campagne dan kun je klikken op de pijl in de rechter beneden hoek.

(33)

Q7 Bedankt voor het kijken.

Nu zullen er een aantal stellingen volgen over de campagne van Delicioso en de reacties die je zojuist hebt gelezen. Deze vragen kun je beantwoorden aan de hand van een 5 punt Likert schaal lopend van 'helemaal mee oneens' tot 'helemaal mee eens'.

Q10 In hoeverre ben je het eens met de volgende stellingen? Dit bedrijf komt op mij over als...

Helemaal mee oneens (1) Oneens (2) Niet oneens/Niet eens (3) Eens (4) Helemaal mee eens (5) Een maatschappelijk verantwoord bedrijf (1)     

Een bedrijf dat zich bezighoudt met het verbeteren

van het welzijn van het milieu (2)

    

Een bedrijf dat hoge ethische normen volgt (3)

    

Een bedrijf dat op maatschappelijk

verantwoorde wijze optreedt (4)

    

Een bedrijf dat oprecht geeft om milieubescherming

(5)

    

Een bedrijf dat echte zorgen heeft

voor

milieubescherming (6)

    

Een bedrijf dat probeert een goed beeld van zichzelf

te creëren (7)

    

Een bedrijf dat probeert zijn bestaande beeld te

verbeteren (8)

(34)

Q8 In hoeverre ben je het eens met de volgende stellingen?

Click to write Column 1

Helemaal mee oneens (1) Oneens (2) Niet oneens/Niet eens (3) Eens (4) Helemaal mee eens (5) Ik kan mij identificeren met het merk Delicioso (1)      Ik heb positieve gevoelens bij het merk Delicioso (2)      Ik zal geneigd zijn om Delicioso te kopen (3)      Ik ben verheugd om Delicioso te kiezen (4)      Ik heb de intentie om andere Delicioso services of producten te gebruiken (5)      Op de grond van de informatie die ik heb verkregen zou ik Delicioso aanraden aan andere mensen (6)      Ik vind dit merk goed (7)      Ik vind dit merk leuk (8)     

(35)

Q15 In hoeverre ben je het eens met de volgende stellingen? Helemaal mee oneens (1) Oneens (2) Niet oneens/Niet eens (3) Eens (4) Helemaal mee eens (5) Ik vind het milieu belangrijk (1)      Ik vind het belangrijk dat een bedrijf maatschappelijk verantwoord onderneemt (2)     

Bij een gelijke prijs en kwaliteit kies ik

voor een product dat afkomstig is van een bedrijf

dat maatschappelijk verantwoord onderneemt (3)      Q11 Wat is je geslacht?  Man (1)  Vrouw (2)

Q12 Wat is je leeftijd in jaren?

Q13 Wat is je hoogst genoten opleiding? (afgerond of nog mee bezig)  VMBO/MAVO (1)  HAVO (2)  VWO (3)  MBO (4)  HBO (5)  WO (Bachelor) (6)  WO (Master) (7)  Anders (8)

(36)

Q14 Hoe reageerde het bedrijf op de reacties van de consument?  Het bedrijf stond niet open voor dialoog met de consumenten (1)  Het bedrijf reageerde kort op de consumenten (2)

 Het bedrijf ging echt in dialoog met de consumenten (3)

Q15 Om het onderzoek af te sluiten word je verzocht om op de pijl in de rechter beneden hoek te drukken. Bedankt voor je deelname!

(37)

Appendix II – Manipulation material

CSR campaign Delicioso

(38)

Condition 2

(39)
(40)

Appendix III - Syntax

*Data cleanen - mensen die de vragenlijst niet hebben afgemaakt. DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.

FILTER OFF. USE ALL.

SELECT IF (V10 = 1). EXECUTE.

*Conditie 1 gemaakt.

RECODE Conditie1 (SYSMIS=0) (1=1) INTO Conditie.1. VARIABLE LABELS Conditie.1 'Conditie.1'.

EXECUTE.

*Conditie 2 gemaakt.

RECODE Conditie2 (SYSMIS=0) (1=2) INTO Conditie.2. VARIABLE LABELS Conditie.2 'Conditie.2'.

EXECUTE.

*Conditie 3 gemaakt.

RECODE Conditie3 (SYSMIS=0) (1=3) INTO Conditie.3. VARIABLE LABELS Conditie.3 'Conditie.3'.

EXECUTE.

*Onafhankelijke variabele 'Dialogue' maken.

COMPUTE Dialogue=(Conditie.1 + Conditie.2 + Conditie.3). EXECUTE.

*Levels maken.

RECODE Dialogue (1=0) (2=1) (3=2) INTO Dialogueher. VARIABLE LABELS Dialogueher 'Dialogueher'.

EXECUTE.

* Define Variable Properties. *Dialogue.

VALUE LABELS Dialogueher .00 'No Dialogue' 1.00 'Short response' 2.00 'Real Dialogue'. EXECUTE. *Manipulatiecheck. CROSSTABS

(41)

/FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /STATISTICS=CHISQ PHI /CELLS=COUNT

/COUNT ROUND CELL. *Randomnisatiecheck geslacht. CROSSTABS /TABLES=Conditie BY Geslacht /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /STATISTICS=CHISQ PHI /CELLS=COUNT

/COUNT ROUND CELL. *Randomnisatiecheck leeftijd. UNIANOVA Leeftijd BY Conditie /METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/INTERCEPT=INCLUDE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /DESIGN=Conditie. *Check of het hetzelfde is. ONEWAY Leeftijd BY Conditie /MISSING ANALYSIS.

*Randomnisatiecheck opleiding. UNIANOVA Opleiding BY Conditie /METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/INTERCEPT=INCLUDE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /DESIGN=Conditie. *Check of het hetzelfde is.

ONEWAY Opleiding BY Conditie /MISSING ANALYSIS.

*Herocderen van twee stellingen negatief/positief.

RECODE Q10_1_7 (1=7) (2=6) (3=5) (4=4) (5=3) (6=2) (7=1) INTO goedbeeldcreeeren. EXECUTE.

RECODE Q10_1_8 (1=7) (2=6) (3=5) (4=4) (5=3) (6=2) (7=1) INTO beeldverbeteren. EXECUTE.

(42)

/VARIABLES Q10_1_1 Q10_1_2 Q10_1_3 Q10_1_4 Q10_1_5 Q10_1_6 goedbeeldcreeeren beeldverbeteren

/MISSING LISTWISE

/ANALYSIS Q10_1_1 Q10_1_2 Q10_1_3 Q10_1_4 Q10_1_5 Q10_1_6 goedbeeldcreeeren beeldverbeteren

/PRINT INITIAL EXTRACTION ROTATION /PLOT EIGEN

/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1) ITERATE(25) /EXTRACTION PC

/CRITERIA ITERATE(25) /ROTATION VARIMAX /METHOD=CORRELATION. *Kijken of het betrouwbaar is. RELIABILITY

/VARIABLES=Q10_1_1 Q10_1_2 Q10_1_3 Q10_1_4 Q10_1_5 Q10_1_6 goedbeeldcreeeren beeldverbeteren

/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA

/STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE /SUMMARY=TOTAL.

*Nu kan ik dus goedbeeldcreeeren en beeldverbeteren er beter uit laten want die halen de betrouwbaarheid omlaag.

*Factoranalyze Skepticism nieuw. FACTOR

/VARIABLES Q10_1_1 Q10_1_2 Q10_1_3 Q10_1_4 Q10_1_5 Q10_1_6 /MISSING LISTWISE

/ANALYSIS Q10_1_1 Q10_1_2 Q10_1_3 Q10_1_4 Q10_1_5 Q10_1_6 /PRINT INITIAL EXTRACTION ROTATION

/PLOT EIGEN

/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1) ITERATE(25) /EXTRACTION PC

/CRITERIA ITERATE(25) /ROTATION VARIMAX /METHOD=CORRELATION. *Kijken of het betrouwbaar is. RELIABILITY

/VARIABLES=Q10_1_1 Q10_1_2 Q10_1_3 Q10_1_4 Q10_1_5 Q10_1_6 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL

(43)

/SUMMARY=TOTAL.

*Nieuwe variabele gemaakt voor skepticism.

COMPUTE Skepticism=MEAN(Q10_1_1,Q10_1_2,Q10_1_3,Q10_1_4,Q10_1_5,Q10_1_6). EXECUTE.

*Factoranalyze Attitude company. FACTOR

/VARIABLES Q8_1_1 Q8_1_2 Q8_1_3 Q8_1_4 Q8_1_5 Q8_1_6 Q8_1_7 Q8_1_8 /MISSING LISTWISE

/ANALYSIS Q8_1_1 Q8_1_2 Q8_1_3 Q8_1_4 Q8_1_5 Q8_1_6 Q8_1_7 Q8_1_8 /PRINT INITIAL EXTRACTION ROTATION

/PLOT EIGEN

/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1) ITERATE(25) /EXTRACTION PC

/CRITERIA ITERATE(25) /ROTATION VARIMAX /METHOD=CORRELATION. *Kijken of het betrouwbaar is. RELIABILITY

/VARIABLES=Q8_1_1 Q8_1_2 Q8_1_3 Q8_1_4 Q8_1_5 Q8_1_6 Q8_1_7 Q8_1_8 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL

/MODEL=ALPHA

/STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE /SUMMARY=TOTAL.

*Nieuwe variabele maken voor Attitude company. COMPUTE

AttitudeTowardsCompany=MEAN(Q8_1_1,Q8_1_2,Q8_1_3,Q8_1_4,Q8_1_5,Q8_1_6,Q8_1 _7,Q8_1_8).

EXECUTE.

*Testen hypothese 1a en 1b. DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.

ONEWAY AttitudeTowardsCompany BY Dialogueher /MISSING ANALYSIS.

UNIANOVA AttitudeTowardsCompany BY Dialogueher /METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/INTERCEPT=INCLUDE

/EMMEANS=TABLES(Dialogueher) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE

(44)

/DESIGN=Dialogueher. *Testen hypothese 2a en 2b.

ONEWAY Skepticism BY Dialogueher /MISSING ANALYSIS.

UNIANOVA Skepticism BY Dialogueher /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /INTERCEPT=INCLUDE /EMMEANS=TABLES(Dialogueher) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /DESIGN=Dialogueher.

*Skepticism verdeeld in twee groepen.

RECODE Skepticism (Lowest thru 3.5=0) (3.5 thru Highest=1) INTO skep2groups. EXECUTE.

* Define Variable Properties. *skep2groups.

VALUE LABELS skep2groups .00 'more skeptical'

1.00 'less skeptical'. EXECUTE.

*T-toets voor H3a.

T-TEST GROUPS=skep2groups(0 1) /MISSING=ANALYSIS

/VARIABLES=AttitudeTowardsCompany /CRITERIA=CI(.95).

*PROCESS gebruikt voor H3b.

*Descriptives voor Sample beschrijving. DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=V10

/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.

DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Geslacht Leeftijd Opleiding /STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Geslacht /ORDER=ANALYSIS.

(45)

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

*Factoranalyze controle variable: care for CSR/environment. DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.

FACTOR

/VARIABLES Q15_1_1 Q15_1_2 Q15_1_3 /MISSING LISTWISE

/ANALYSIS Q15_1_1 Q15_1_2 Q15_1_3 /PRINT INITIAL EXTRACTION ROTATION /PLOT EIGEN

/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1) ITERATE(25) /EXTRACTION PC

/CRITERIA ITERATE(25) /ROTATION VARIMAX /METHOD=CORRELATION. *Is het betrouwbaar?.

RELIABILITY

/VARIABLES=Q15_1_1 Q15_1_2 Q15_1_3 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL

/MODEL=ALPHA

/STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE /SUMMARY=TOTAL.

*Nieuwe variabele care for CSR/environment.

COMPUTE CareforCSR environment=MEAN(Q15_1_1,Q15_1_2,Q15_1_3). EXECUTE.

*Beschrijvingen.

DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=CareforCSR environment /STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=CareforCSR environment /STATISTICS=STDDEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN /PIECHART FREQ

/ORDER=ANALYSIS. *Beschrijving condities.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Conditie

/STATISTICS=STDDEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN /PIECHART PERCENT

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the

The aim of this research is to get a good insight of the attitude and behaviour of consumers towards China Daily, an English language newspaper in Shanghai, China.. In this

Thus, the main research aim is to find out whether CSR activities promoted by social media influencers increase positive brand attitudes and consumer purchase

In the case of Bérengère Jeans and the promotional strategy factor 1, there is an insignificant indirect effect on purchase intentions through greed perceptions, ab = -0.18, BCa

We abbreviate the problems of partitioning the vertex set of a (not necessarily properly) edge-colored graph into a minimum number of monochromatic cliques and multicolored cycles

The tensions are the following: (1) formal standardisation versus informal programs for determining WP functionality; (2) formal decentralization versus informal centralization of

[r]