Brand versus public organization message effectiveness
The effect of source (brand vs. public) on consumer attitude towards sustainability
communication
Mattia Falciani
12358401
Master thesis
Graduate School of Communication
MSc Persuasive & Corporate Communication
Supervisor: M. L. Fransen
1
Abstract
Consumers’ increasing interest in sustainability has resulted in a vast majority of brands engaging in Corporate Social Responsibility communication to the general public. Equally, governments and
public organizations regularly promote sustainability campaigns as well, to advocate those policies
and urge citizens towards environmental-friendly behaviours.
This study compares the effects of those two different types of message source, brand and public
organization, on attitudes toward the message and recycling intention. A sustainability message sent
by a public organization source resulted higher in credibility, than a brand source message. No
significant direct effect of message source on attitude towards the message and recycling intention
was found, however analysis found a mediation effect of credibility. Furthermore, an exploratory moderation for participant’s cynicism was found non-significant. Individuals seem to value credibility over likeability of a message source, when evaluating sustainability communication.
Brands engaging in this type of communication should ensure to have a sufficiently strong
reputation and may consider partnering with public organizations to achieve better effectiveness
results. Based on these findings, implications and recommendations for future research are
provided.
2
Introduction
In recent years we have experienced an increasing attention of mass media for environmental
issues. The myriad of scientific studies regarding climate change, global warming, plastic pollution
and similar, has gained broad space across printed and broadcast media, making all these issues a
wider public problem (Qader & Zainuddin, 2011). New protest movements and social enterprises
surged with the aim of tackling environmentally damaging actions, while public opinion became
more aware and attentive to the precarious conditions of the planet.
Governments have a strategic role in environmental issues, designing the national environmental
policies that regulate the use of resources and the correct disposal of waste, to which citizens and
enterprises alike must adhere. On the other side, national authorities are also subjected to external
influence. For example, to comply with international environmental objectives, such as the Kyoto
Protocol (1997) or the Paris Agreement (2015), or to align with further supranational directives, like
the European Union regulations. The big challenges that both scientific research and public opinion
are posing on public sector organizations impose governments to put in place concrete measures
that prompt citizens to change their behaviours in terms of sustainability and environmental
consciousness. Leveraging on its persuasive power, policymakers make use of advertising
campaigns in a similar fashion to businesses: they inform, involve and drive societal change across
the public (Wooden, 2008), but aim towards environmental challenges.
The effectiveness of an advertising message is related to various factors, however likeability and
credibility of the message source are considered two remarkable elements (Yilmaz et al., 2011).
Both the source characteristics in fact have an impact on how messages are processed by
individuals. A likeable source tends to increase the attention and purchase intention of the public,
while a credible source tends to increase message influence on the public (Yilmaz et al., 2011;
3
Businesses make use advertising to persuade consumers, changing their intentions towards the
ultimate goal of purchasing their products or services (Skard & Thorbjørnsen, 2014). However, as
the attention for sustainability and environmental-related causes translates also to consumers,
brands make large use of it in their corporate or commercial communications. Corporate Social
Responsibility has become overall popular among private companies, because of its proven effectiveness in sustaining a corporation’s prosperity over time (Öberseder et al., 2013). In some cases, the effective communication of a brand’s sustainability efforts or mission has been key for the company growth (e.g. Patagonia, The North Face, Lush, etc.). Nevertheless, the surge of these
types of communication, and relative market positioning, have sparked concern among consumers,
who are found to be especially sceptical of CSR-related campaigns. Customers do not always trust
the motives behind businesses’ environment-friendly actions (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006). For some
individuals, a cynicism attribute may play an interesting role in this sceptical attitude towards
sustainability messages. Cynicism is a personality trait consisting of disbelief towards others, which
may explain individuals’ reactions to external communication (Mohr et al., 1998), and therefore to messages communicated from a brand or a public organization source.
Public organizations, moreover, suffer from a systemic negative reputation, resulting in low
perceptions of reliability, efficiency and trust (Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012; Goodsell, 2004). In a
simple way, environmental campaigns from governments or more in general public organizations,
do not have substantial echo among the public. So, businesses and public sectors engage in
communicating eco-friendly initiatives; despite different goals, they both promote sustainable
actions among the public, for institutional reasons on one side, and reputational one on the other.
This allows the emergence of interesting possibilities. Advertising practitioners, marketeers,
communication specialists and policy makers alike could benefit from understanding what drives
message source effectiveness. As climate and environment are critical future challenges for
4
in driving a sustainability-related behaviour change. Commercial partnerships and brand alliances
have resulted overtime in effective marketing opportunities for brands pursuing specific positive associations, benefiting of “spill over” effects for example (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). Similar partnerships could be envisioned for sustainability communication, ideally teaming up positive
elements of public and private.
Scholars haven’t yet extensively investigated the potentials and pitfalls of sustainability
communicated by these two sources. While studies on CSR have filled the journals of business
management and marketing communications in recent years, there is a lack of insight into the
results and effects of similar messages, coming from a public source. Some literature analysed
the opportunities of a public-private collaboration to enhance some public services (Guzmán &
Sierra, 2012), however to our knowledge no prior experimental study has investigated the
different effect of public and private message source on individuals exposed to this type of
communication. This research contributes to provide academic insight into an aspect of
sustainability communication that so far has received limited attention.
Therefore, this study aims to explore the influence of different message sources (brand vs. public
organization) on individuals’reaction towards sustainability-related message. Hence, the following
research questions were formulated.
RQ1 What is the effect of the source of a sustainability-related message (brand vs. public sector
organization) on attitudes towards the message and recycling intention? Do source credibility and
likeability mediate these effects?
RQ2: Is the effect of source on credibility and likability moderated by participants’ level of
5
Theoretical Background
In this section, the general notion of CSR will be examined first. Then, a brief
introduction of the concepts of attitude toward the message and recycling intention
will be presented, and finally, the source effect theory will be explained.
Furthermore, the focus on the effects of source credibility and source likeability will
follow, along with the explanation of the concept of cynicism.
Corporate Social Responsibility
Today's concept of corporate social responsibility was developed primarily during the 1960s in the
USA with the notion that corporations have responsibilities that go beyond their legal obligations
(Brønn & Vrioni, 2001). Enderle and Tavis (1998) describe corporate social responsibility as the
practice or policy of a corporation's social involvement beyond its legal requirements for the benefit
of the general society. Visser (2011) describes CSR as a method utilized by business to assemble,
not consume, a wide range of assets (economic, natural, human, etc.). This sense of acknowledging
the industrial footprint, taking responsibility for the resources used and the commitment to give
something back to communities, society and environment is common to many concepts of
sustainability. However, corporate sustainability is a complex and multidimensional approach that
has generated a varied lexicon and a rich stream of literature.
Despite the popular evidence that companies communicating their social responsibility get
rewarded by consumers (Öberseder et al., 2013; Ellen et al., 2000; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001),
studies also showed that reactions to CSR activities are mediated by many factors (Yoon et at.,
6
CSR effectiveness (Yoon et at., 2006), as well as perceived congruence between consumers’ and
company’s characteristics in response to brand’s CSR initiatives (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). Sen & Bhattacharya (2001) examined the effects of CSR and new product information on a sample
of MBA students, finding out that the positive effect of CSR initiatives on company evaluation is
mediated by consumers’ perception of coherent relationship between personal and company characteristics. Consumers tend to have a stronger identification with the brand, and consequent
support towards it, when they recognize the brand’s CSR efforts as in line with the individual’s
self-concepts (Ahearne et al., 2005). However, it has been largely proven that factors related to the
company, the CSR cause and the consumer’s general belief may decrease consumer’s willingness to purchase a product (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001), when exposed to a CSR campaign. Therefore,
findings on CSR effects remain mixed and changing depending on multiple factors.
Recycling intention and attitude toward the message
In the field of CSR, messages are not usually aimed at promoting purchases, but rather at
encouraging behaviour change, towards more environmentally friendly behaviours (Hartmann et al.,
2005). Recycling in particular, is a sustainable behaviour that aims at reducing human impact on the
environment (Wan et al., 2017). It also represents one of the most addressed issues from
governments around the world. Institutions have launched various schemes and plans to address the
problem and promote correct recycling practices among people (Wan et al. 2017; Wilson et al.,
2012). Therefore, a great majority of individuals are familiar with recycling and with
communication campaigns promoting its correct process.
As not every advertisement is designed to create an immediate purchase behaviour, increase in sales
is not the only measure of advertisement effectiveness. Cognitive and affective dimensions have
become more and more important to researchers and practitioners (Yilmaz et al., 2011; Lutz et al.,
7
popular in the academic world (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2008). Attitude toward the ad is defined as “a predisposition to respond in a favourable or unfavourable manner to a particular advertising
stimulus during a particular exposure occasion” (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989, p. 49). Extensive research has demonstrated AAD to be an important mediator of advertising response (MacKenzie &
Lutz, 1989; MacKenzie et al., 1986). There is also strong support that AAD together with brand
attitude may influence repeated purchasing behaviour (Lutz et al., 1983; MacKenzie et al., 1986).
Source effects
Companies that want to communicate their CSR efforts often do so “quietly”, in a challenging effort to balance internal stakeholders needs and potentially negative external reactions (Skard &
Thorbjørnsen, 2014). On the other side, public organizations that promote sustainability campaigns are indissolubly linked to their image of “public sector” institution. The difference in the source of a sustainability-related message may influence consumer evaluation and their level of trust towards
this type of communication.
Message source has been largely studied in several academic fields, from Communication Science
to Psychology and Consumer Behaviour, encompassing the different effects that it produces on the
persuasion process. Literature regarding source effects has been pioneered by Kelman (1961) who
proposed three psychological processes through which a message source can lead to attitude
change: internalization, identification and compliance. An individual may internalize the influence
of the message source as a consequence of perceiving the promoted behaviour as congruent with the
own values (Kelman, 1961). Such process of acceptance can only take place if the individual
considers the communication source as truthful and genuine, or in other words only if the
communication source possesses credibility, as Wilson & Sherrell (1993) point out. The process of
identification instead has source attractiveness (also named source likeability, as referred by Yilmaz
8
audience are more likely to accept and embrace opinions of attractive (or likeable) sources,
compared to unattractive sources. Finally, Kelman (1961) theorizes an influence process based on
compliance, when the message source act as an agent with “means control”. That is, the case in
which message source has the power of punishing the audience if the promoted opinion change
does not take place. However, this last process is generally seen as not relevant by researchers in
Communication Science (Wilson & Sherrell, 1993), because of the difficulty in recreating similar
conditions in a study. Hence, source credibility and source likeability, the influencing agents of the respective processes of internalization and identification proposed by Kelman’s framework,
represent the two main dimensions studied in the source effects theory.
Effects of source credibility
Source credibility concerns the communicator’s trustworthiness and expertise as it is perceived by the public (Kelman & Hovland, 1953; Yilmaz et al., 2011). Some researchers suggested that source
credibility represents a multidimensional construct, encompassing various dimensions such as
expertise, reliability, goodwill (Giffin, 1967), safety, qualification, dynamism (Berlo et al., 1969)
and finally also trustworthiness (Goldsmith et al., 2000). Others instead have studied it as a
comprehensive construct (Wilson & Sherrell, 1993; Yilmaz et al., 2011).
In persuasive communication, studies on source credibility have often been connected to attribution
theory: researchers have focused on the reason that consumers attribute to explain why a
communicator promotes a certain position or opinion through a message (Yilmaz et al., 2011). For
example, Eagly & Chaiken (1975) have demonstrated how individuals tend to disagree with
messages that are perceived as low credibility and attributed as containing bias elements.
Source credibility has been demonstrated to affect the success of firms's CSR initiatives, on par
with corporate reputation (Skard & Thorbjørnsen, 2014). Dahlén & Lange argue that consumers
9
communication efforts (as cited in Skard & Thorbjørnsen, 2014). In the case of CSR
communications, Strahilevitz (2003) points out that companies perceived as unethical do not benefit
from CSR positive effects on reputation while Osterhus (1997) demonstrated that trust in a
company, together with its involvement in the social activity, has a positive effect on CSR.
Research suggests that the negative role of bad reputations in consumer perception of CSR activities
is caused by the impression that companies are involved in these activities solely for commercial
reasons, to “clean” their negative image (Skard & Thorbjørnsen, 2014; Du et al., 2010). The authors explain that consumers attribute a higher amount of self-serving motives to CSR activities from a
company with poor reputation.
To the extent of our knowledge however, no studies have investigated individuals’ attitude towards sustainability communication promoted by public organizations. Research in the field of public
management has shown that many governments and public sector organizations in general have a
bad image among the citizens (Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012). According to the authors, bad
reputation of public organizations is mainly linked with the type of services that such
administrations provide to citizens on a daily base, and not directly on their level of trustworthiness.
Furthermore, a public organization has no commercial purposes: it is run by a government, it
operates with money from taxpayers and it provides good and services for the benefit of the
community (BBC, 2020). Based on the above discussions, we expect that a public organization
source will be evaluated as more credible than a brand source. The first hypothesis is proposed.
H1 A message promoting an environmentally sustainable behaviour posted by a public sector organization will result in higher perceptions of credibility than a message posted by a brand.
Furthermore, Belch and Belch argued that when consumers trust the source of a message as
credible, they perceive positively both the ad and the brand (as cited in Yilmaz et al., 2011).
10
credibility levels, in obtaining the consumer’s attention, resulting in positive attitude toward the ad and towards the brand (Goldsmith et al., 2000). Generally, AAD has been studied as a mediator
between advertising influence on brand attitude and on purchasing intention (Lutz et al., 1983;
MacKenzie et al., 1986). This is also based on the extensive conceptual and empirical research
demonstrating a higher repurchase intention rate as consequence of ad attitude (Yilmaz et al., 2011).
Based on the mentioned studies, and on similar others that position AAD as antecedent of
behavioural measures of effectiveness (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989) we hypothesize that attitude
toward the message may result in a similar effect on a similar behavioural intention dimension,
recycling intention. Therefore, according to the above discussions, the third hypothesis is proposed.
H3 There is a positive relationship between credibility and (a) attitudes towards the message and (b) behavioural intention.
Effects of source likeability
Source likeability is defined as “the ability to create a pleasant and enjoyable perception” (Yilmaz
et al., 2011, p. 892) among the communication target audience. Sanders describes it as the
communicator’s capacity of establishing a positive experience, especially in connection with the individual’s personal emotions (as cited by Yilmaz et al., 2011). Consistent research in the past has studied source likeability primarily on the physical attractiveness dimension, looking at physical
appearances of testimonials, endorsers or spokespersons for example (Chaiken, 1979; Joseph,
1982). While many likeability theories are focused on people, as Nguyen et al., (2013) point out,
likeability traits of individuals can be applied to firms, and more broadly, source of communication.
Human traits are often used in branding and persuasive communication, as firms want to appeal to
values, feeling and personal experiences in order to create an emotional link with the potential
customer (Poels & Dewitte, 2006). On the other side, the same traits can hardly be applied to public
11
for three reasons, as theorized by Wæraas & Byrkjeflot (2012): first, public organizations must
serve anyone, without possibility of segmenting specific buyer groups or ideal personas; second, as
they are generally based on a traditional bureaucratic management model, they suffer from a
widespread discreditation among the public, which makes it even harder to build charisma
(Goodsell, 2004); and third, public organizations struggle to have a positive reputation because the
issues they handle are very often insoluble. Problem such as unemployment, crime, poverty or
ecological crises are unlikely to be solved for good (Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012). Furthermore,
citizens refer to such organizations to obtain essential and accessible services because they need
them, not for personal satisfaction, like in the case of buying goods for example, where an
emotional appeal is possible for companies with strong reputations (Fombrun & van Riel, 2004).
Based on the general poor image associated by citizens to public organizations (Wæraas &
Byrkjeflot, 2012; Goodsell, 2004) and, on the opposite, the common charisma and emotional appeal
linked to commercial brands (Poels & Dewitte, 2006; Fombrun & van Riel, 2004), the second
hypothesis is proposed.
H2 A message promoting an environmentally sustainable behaviour posted by a brand will result in higher perceptions of likeability than a message posted by a public sector organization.
There is consistent literature that demonstrates how source likeability is a relevant indicator of
effectiveness in advertising (Yilmaz et al., 2001; Chao et al., 2005). A stream of literature uses
social adaptation theory to justify source likeability (Kahle & Homer, 1985): source likeability is a
peripheral cue influencing the audience’s attitude when processing the advertisement information, if this information is useful in individuals’ adaptation to the environment (Yilmaz et al., 2011).
Most effects of source likeability are towards attitude change. Himmelfarb & Arazi (1974), Callcott
& Phillips (1996), Wilson & Sherrell (1993) are some of the researchers who demonstrated how a
12
likeability of a spokesperson by Phillips and Lee have shown how the dimension correlates
positively with both attitude toward the ad and attitude toward the brand (as cited in Yilmaz et al.,
2011). Based on the mediation relationship that AAD has on behavioural measures of advertising
effectiveness (Lutz et al., 1983; MacKenzie et al., 1986; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989), and on the
previously mentioned studies, we formulate the following fourth hypothesis.
H4 There is a positive relationship between likability and (a) attitudes towards the message and (b) behavioural intention.
Cynicism
Several studies have showed that there is a large slice of consumers who are increasingly sceptical
about the positive statements shared on media or across commercial sources of information, by
companies (Mohr et al., 2001).
A sceptic is defined as a person who usually doubts that claims or statements are true, especially
those that other people believe in (Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, 2020). According to Mohr et al.
(1998), scepticism together with cynicism explain the reactions that individuals have to others’ communications. Although often used interchangeably, the author specifies that these two terms
have a pretty clear separation: cynicism is an enduring disbelief of others, while scepticism may be
present only in specific circumstances. Cynicism should be defined as a personality trait (stable
over time), while scepticism represents a varying cognitive response, depending on the content and
the context in which a message is communicated. Despite this distinction, the two concepts are
highly correlated, as the cynicism trait impacts the level of scepticism of an individual (Mohr et
al.,1998). In other words, a cynic person is more likely to also being sceptical, compared to an
individual with low levels of cynicism. Kanter and Mirvis (1989, p. 301) further express the concept
as: “sceptics doubt the substance of communications; cynics not only doubt what is said but the
13
be influenced. As cynicism represents an enduring trait it would be very difficult, or nearly
impossible, to influence it; while on the other side scepticism can be leveraged, mainly increasing the audience’s knowledge.
As seen previously, consumers have in general a certain amount of distrust and cynicism towards
advertising, and this becomes remarkably more emphasized when the persuasive communication
concerns CSR-related initiatives (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006). Such negative attitude has been
observed to relate to individuals’ cynicism about the motives behind such “socially driven”
initiatives from organisations. One of the main “triggers” of this scepticism is the perception of the firm’s motives for such initiatives as “self-serving” (Brønn & Vrioni, 2001). Forehand and Grier (2003) specify, on the same line of thought, that the main drive of audience scepticism is in the
discrepancy between declared objectives and actual firm actions: when the former is of complete
social nature but the latter appear indeed as self-serving.
Considering that the concept of cynicism has been rarely investigated in experimental studies and
the fact that a large part of consumers is specifically cautious towards CSR-related messages, an
exploratory research question has been proposed.
Based on the theory and hypothesis discussed above, the following model (Figure 1) was
developed.
SOURCE
(brand vs public org.)BEHAVIOURAL INTENTION AD-ATTITUDE LIKEABILITY CREDIBILITY H1 H2 H3a H3b H4a H4b CYNICISM CYNICISM
14
Figure 1: Conceptual model of the study
Method
Research design and sample
The study used a between-subjects experimental design where one independent variable with two
levels, (1) brand source and (2) public organization source, was manipulated. The dependent
variables were attitude toward the message and recycling intention. Furthermore, credibility and
likeability were measured as mediators while cynicism was explored as a continuous moderator. A
convenience sample of adults participated in the online experiment: subjects were recruited mainly
through social media (Facebook groups, personal Instagram profile) and electronic word of mouth
(WhatsApp). Every individual above the age of eighteen could take part in the study. In total, 208
individuals started the study. Ten of them did not properly complete it, one was below the minimum
required age, therefore they were excluded. Based on the manipulation check, further thirty-four
participants were excluded. After cleaning all the data, a total of 163 subjects constituted the final
sample. 65.0% of participants were female (106), 33.1% male (54) and 1.8% prefer not to specify,
with age ranging from 18 to 60 (M = 25.60, SD = 6.46). Majority of participants hold a bachelor
(45.4%) or master’s degree (31.3%).
Procedure
The study was built and distributed on the Qualtrics platform. Participants could access the study on
any device through internet connection. Once reached the first page, they were informed about the
general purpose of the study and requested to give their informed consent, which was required in
order to begin the experiment. The software then randomly presented participants with one of the
two stimuli; pictures graphically manipulated for the purposes of the study. Subsequently, subjects
15
variables (credibility and likeability) first, then the dependent variables (attitude toward the message
and recycling intention), and the moderator (cynicism). A manipulation check question was then
presented to the subjects. Finally, participants were asked some demographic information such as
age, gender and level of education. In the end, a text debriefed the participants regarding the
fictious nature of the stimuli and thanked for the participation.
Independent variable: message source
The two message sources consisted of images of a real print advertisement created to raise
awareness on the waste problem and promote recycling among citizens. The image presents a big
icon of the earth in the centre, composed paper and cardboard waste in blue and green, representing
the South American continent (green) and oceans (blue). On the left side of the picture the text: “the
most valuable assets need the strongest protection” and on the right side the call to action:
“separate and recycle – every act counts”. The two images exhibit these identical characteristics, except for the logo on the right bottom side, which identify the source of the message and represent
the experimental manipulation of the source. One picture presents the logo of a brand (HP,
Hewlett-Packard), and another one the logo of an intergovernmental organization (UN, The United Nations).
Participants were randomly exposed to the picture, presenting either the brand or the public
organization logo, all the other characteristics including visuals, colours, text and size were kept
constant. The stimulus material is showed in Appendix A.
Pre-test
In order to reduce potential errors that would damage the statistical estimation of effect on the
population, it was necessary to select two sources that generate a neutral perception among the
participants.
This also ensures the reliability of the results and prevent possible participants’ bias based on prior
16
In the pre-test participants were exposed to ten different brands and ten different public
organizations and were asked to rate on a 5-point bipolar semantic scale, each brand and
organization on three different dimensions: friendliness (very unfriendly – very
eco-friendly); attractiveness (very unattractive – very attractive); and familiarity (very unfamiliar – very
familiar) of the brands and organizations. These variables were measured because perceived
eco-friendliness and attractiveness of the source can potentially distort participants’ evaluation of the
message, either negatively or positively. Familiarity was measured to ensure an underlying recognition of the sources, which would ensure the participant’s comprehensive evaluation of the message.
The ten brands were selected from the median range of the Best Global Brand rankings, created by
Interbrand (2019), while the ten organizations were chosen from a list of international or
supranational organizations and agencies with the characteristic of operating worldwide and not
directly work on environmental-related issues.
Thirty respondents participated in the pre-test, which was distributed in paper forms, using a
convenience sampling at the university library. This to prevent that the same participants will then
take part in the study, and to partially replicate the characteristics of the study sample group
(university students). Hewlett-Packard (HP) resulted the best fit for brand source, based on its score
on eco-friendliness (M = 2.63, SD = 1.03), attractiveness (M = 3.23, SD = 0.72) and familiarity (M
= 4.06, SD = 1.22). The United Nations (UN) resulted the best option for public organization
source, based on the same measures of eco-friendliness (M = 3.26, SD = 1.08), attractiveness (M =
3.93, SD = 0.83) and familiarity (M = 4.10, SD = 1.02). These two sources were chosen because
scored close to the cumulative means of eco-friendliness (M = 3.07), attractiveness (M = 3.45) and
familiarity (M = 3.79) and had a low amount of dispersion. A one-way analysis of variances
(ANOVA) was used to test that all the selected brands did not differ significantly from each other
17
All the analyses resulted significant, meaning that we found variation on the organization’s score in
each group: familiarity, F (9, 290) = 10.13, p < .001, eta2 = 0.23; attractiveness, F (9, 290) = 6.37, p
< .001, eta2 = 0.16; and eco-friendliness, F (9, 290) = 6.40, p < .001, eta2 = 0.16. A more
interesting result is the post-test: Bonferroni post-hoc tests indicated no significant difference
between UN and HP on familiarity (Mdifference = -.30, p = 1.000), attractiveness (Mdifference = -.70, p =
.217) and eco-friendliness (Mdifference = -.63, p = .631). Therefore, UN and HP did not differ
significantly from each other on the three measures.
Mediators: Credibility and Likeability
Participants were asked to evaluate the message they saw. In order to measure perceived credibility
and likeability of the message, two sets of four seven-point bipolar items were used, selected from
scales used by Yilmaz et al. (2011). The two scales were first developed by respectively Zhang and
Buda (1999) and Whittler and DiMeo (1991), as cited by Yilmaz et al. (2011). The complete scales
are shown in Appendix 1. Three items of the credibility scale and two on the likeability scale were
not taken into consideration because deleted in relevant previous studies due to failed confirmatory
factor analyses (Yilmaz et al., 2011).
Regarding credibility, the four items measure how reliable, knowledgeable, credible and
trustworthy the message is perceived to be by the participants (Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, α =
.93). The four items were then averaged into one credibility dimension (M = 5.54, SD = 1.34).
For likeability, the items evaluate to what extent participants grasped the messages as friendly,
likeable, warm and appealing (α = .867). Likeability was averaged into a unique dimension (M =
5.08, SD = 1.37).
18
Participants reaction to the message was measured with the popular attitude toward the ad (AAD)
measure used by MacKenzie et al. (1986). Two seven points bipolar scales were introduced by “I consider the message as…”, measuring the extent to which participants perceived the message as favourable/unfavourable and interesting/boring. The reliability of AAD, comprising the two items,
was good: α = .800 (M = 5.31, SD = 1.33).
Dependent variable: Recycling intention
Participants future intention in recycling their waste was measured with three 7-point Likert scales, anchored by ‘strongly disagree – strongly agree’, based on Wan et al. (2017). Introduced by ‘Please indicate to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements…’, participants were
asked to score the following statements : ‘I intend to recycle my recyclables in the next four weeks’; ‘I will recycle my recyclables every time I have it for disposal’; ‘I am willing to participate in the recycling scheme in the future’. The dimension ‘recycling intention’ had a good reliability, α = .883
(M = 6.03, SD = 1.27)
Moderator: Cynicism
Participants level of cynicism was measured using six 7-point Likert scales by Moher et al., (1998).
The scales were introduced by ‘Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the
following statements…’ and composed of statements indicating individual’s social behaviour (i.e. ‘most people are just out for themselves’, ‘most people will tell a lie if they can gain by it’). The six averaged items formed the ‘cynicism’ dimension (M = 4.67, SD = 1.25) with a good reliability, α = .850.
Manipulation check
A manipulation check was conducted for message source. Participants were asked which was the
source of the message they were exposed to at the beginning of the online experiment, choosing
19
Results
Manipulation check
A total of 34 participants (17% of the initial sample) were excluded because of failing the
manipulation check.
Randomization check
To establish that both the conditions did not differ in terms of participants demographics,
randomization checks were performed. In order to check if participants’ age was comparable over
the two source conditions, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. This one-way analysis of variance
had message source (brand vs. public organization) as independent variable and age as dependent.
The ANOVA showed that participants’ mean age in the brand source condition (M = 25.81, SD = 6.87) was not significantly different from participants’ mean age in the public organization source
condition (M = 25.40, SD = 6.09), F (1, 162) = 0.16, p = .690.
Additionally, cross-tabulation showed that the sample was equally distributed over the two
conditions for gender (χ2 (2) = 3.07; p = .215) and education (χ2 (5) = 10.57; p = .060). Hence, the
randomization check was successful.
RQ1 Hypothesis testing
To answer the first research question, two separate regression analyses were conducted using the
PROCESS (Hayes, 2019) modelling tool for IBM SPSS (version 25), with Model 4 for mediation.
One analysis included AAD as dependent variable, the second had recycling intention as dependent
variable.
It was first hypothesized that a message with a public organization source results in higher levels of
20
variable, regression analysis showed a significant effect of message source on credibility, b = .61,
SE = .19, t (161) = 3.16, p = .002, 95%BCBCI [.23, .99]. A message from a public organization
source (M = 5.84, SD = 1.26) leads to a 0.61 higher score on credibility compared to the same
message from a brand source (M = 5.23, SD = 1.20). H1 is therefore confirmed.
Later, it was tested the second hypothesis that message from brand source leads to a higher score on
likeability compared to public organization source. The analysis showed a non-significant
relationship between the source of the message and the mediator likeability, b = .01, SE = .20, t
(161) = 0.07, p = .945, 95%BCBCI [-.39, .42]. A successive analysis of variance showed how brand
source (M = 5.06, SD = 1.33) scored lower than public organization source (M = 5.08, SD = 1.28)
on likeability. H2 must be rejected.
A significant relationship (H3a) between credibility and AAD was found, b = .15, SE = .07, t (159) =
2.15, p = .033, 95%BCBCI [.01, .28]. For every one-unit increase in credibility, attitude toward the
message increases by 0.15. [indirect effect = 0.07, boot SE = 0.09, 95% BCCI (-.18; .18)].
Finally, the effect of likeability on AAD was tested (H4a). A significant effect was found, b = .54, SE
= .06, t (159) = 8.44, p < .001, 95%BCBCI [.42, .67]. For every one-unit increase in likeability
there is a 0.54 increase in AAD. [indirect effect = 0.00, boot SE = 0.09, 95% BCCI (-.18; .18)]. The
first part of our fourth hypothesis is therefore confirmed.
A second analysis using the same model but with recycling intentions as dependent variable was
conducted to test H3b and H4b. It was found a statistically significant effect of credibility on
recycling intention (H3b), b = .21, SE = .09, t (159) = 2.26, p = .025, 95%BCBCI [.02, .40]. For
every one-unit increase in credibility, recycling intention increases by 0.21. [indirect effect = 0.10,
boot SE = 0.05, 95% BCCI (.02; .22)]. H3 is therefore completely confirmed. Furthermore, when
credibility is excluded, the effect of source on the two variables disappears, displaying a full
21
For H4b instead it was found a non-significant effect of likeability on recycling intention, b = -.01,
SE = .09, t (159) = -.08, p = .934, 95%BCBCI [-.19, .17]. [indirect effect = 0.00, boot SE = 0.01,
95% BCCI (-.01; .03)]. Thus, H4b is rejected and H4 can only be partially accepted.
RQ2 Testing
The second research question explores the possibility that the effect of message source on
credibility and likeability may be moderated by participant’s level of cynicism. Model 7 from
PROCESS was used to investigate the possibility that the relationship between source and
credibility changes depending on the level of cynicism of participants. We found a not significant1
moderation effect of cynicism on the two variables, b = -.20, SE = .15, t (159) = -1.28, p = .201,
95%BCBCI [-.50, .11]. Also, the moderation on H2 (source - likeability relationship) resulted not
significant, b = -.20, SE = .16, t (159) = -1.24, p = .218, 95%BCBCI [-.52, .12]. The effect of
message source on likeability was not mediated by cynicism. Figure 2 shows a visual representation
of the tested analyses.
1
For completeness, moderation was also tested with the initial sample (N = 197), including participants who failed the manipulation check. This showed a significant moderation effect of cynicism on the effect of source on credibility, b = -.36, t (193) = -2.448, p = .015, 95%BCBCI [-.38, -.05]. However, moderation resulted significant only at low level of cynicism (c = 0.95, p = .001) were subject would score 0.95 points higher on perceived credibility. The moderation effect on likeability instead was not significant, b = -.29, SE = .16, t (193) = -1.873, p = .063.
22
Figure 2: Conceptual model with analyses results
Additional analysis: Direct effect
Analysis in PROCESS (Hayes, 2019; Model 4) showed also the direct effect of source on the two
dependent variables. Message source had a non-significant direct effect on AAD, b = .15, SE = .15, t
(159) = 1.009, p = .315, 95%BCBCI [-.14, .44]. An independent-samples t-test showed that public
organization source scored higher (M = 5.45, SD = 1.21) than brand source (M = 5.24, SD = 1.24)
on attitude towards the ad.
Message source had a non-significant direct effect on recycling intention, b = -.39, SE = .21, t (159)
= -1.86, p = .064, 95%BCBCI [-.80, .02]. An independent-samples t-test showed that brand source
scored higher (M = 6.14, SD = 1.28) than public organisation (M = 5.88, SD = 1.32) on recycling
intention. As the effects of the independent variable on the dependent ones are not significant, the
study model presents a full mediation. A visual representation of the variation in means can be
found in Figure 3.
SOURCE
RECYCLING INTENTION AD-ATTITUDE LIKEABILITY CREDIBILITY b = 0.54, p < .001 b = 0.21, p = .025 b = 0.01, p = .945 CYNICISM CYNICISMbrand vs. public org.
b = - 0.20 p = .201
b = - 0.20 p = .218
23 5,23 5,06 5,24 6,14 5,84 5,08 5,45 5,88 5 5,2 5,4 5,6 5,8 6 6,2
Credibility** Likeability* Attitude toward the
message*
Recycling intention*
Message source means
Brand source Public organization source
Note: *p > .05, ** p < .05
Figure 3: Message source means
Conclusions & discussion
This study examined the different effects of message source in sustainability-related
communication, on consumers’ attitude toward the ad and recycling intention, and the potential
differences in these effects for cynical subjects.
The first objective of the study was to indicate whether the two message sources scored differently
on perceived credibility and likeability. Successively, the study aimed at investigating whether
credibility and likeability positively mediated the effect of message source on AAD and recycling
intentions. In the second part of the study, the aim was to gain insight into how the effect of
message source on credibility and likeability could change, depending on participants’ level of cynicism.
24
Regarding the first objective, it was found that message with a public organization source score
significantly higher in credibility than the same message from a brand source. These findings
indicate that brands communicating sustainability efforts are perceived by the public as less credible
and trustworthy in their intentions than public organizations. This is pertinent with literature
indicating how consumers tend to be dubious regarding CSR and corporates’ real motives for it
(Becker-Olsen, 2006; Brønn & Vrioni, 2001; Forehand and Grier, 2003). In accordance with
Adhearne et al. (2005), this result could depend on the fact that participants did not evaluate the promoted environmental cause as pertinent with the brand’s attributes.
On the other hand, no statistically significant effect of message source on likeability was found.
Therefore, a message from a brand source has no different effect on likeability compared to a public
organization source. Wæraas & Byrkjeflot (2012) pointed out that public organizations generally
suffer from a bad image and poor reputation, while Nguyen et al., (2013) indicated that brands are
likeable because consumers tend to personify them on an affect-based perception. Results of this
study counter such assumptions. Current findings imply that in the context of a
sustainability-related message, the type of message source does not significantly change consumer’s perception of source likeability. Surprisingly, it was also found a slightly higher likeability score of public
organization source (M = 5.08, SD = 1.28) compared to brand source (M = 5.06, SD = 1.33). The
fact that such difference is relatively small could be related with the specific context of a CSR-type
of communication, where consumer’s distrust toward brands is particularly enhanced.
The second objective of the study investigated whether credibility positively mediated the
effect of message source on AAD (H3a) and recycling intention (H3b). A positive effect of credibility
on two dependent variables was found. This is in line with the suggested literature that refers to
source credibility as one of the main factors in persuading individuals to accept the content of a
25
effect of message source on credibility, the study has showed a full mediation of credibility, as it
was hypothesized.
On the other hand, current results demonstrated that likeability has an effect on AAD but not on
recycling intention. This is in contrast with already mentioned studies that regard likeability as
positively related to attitude change (Himmelfarb & Arazi, 1974) and correlated with credibility in
affecting positively AAD, attitude toward the brand and purchase behaviour (Yilmaz et al., 2011).
Furthermore, results showed that message source has no significant effect on likeability. Therefore,
perceived likeability of the message does not mediate this relationship.
These results are fascinating, because they show that likeability is not a crucial element in driving individual’s intention of adopting a more sustainable behaviour. Despite likeability’s importance in traditional advertising has been largely accepted (Kelman, 1961; Nguyen et al., 2013; Yilmaz et al.,
2011), results of this study demonstrated that credibility (over likeability) of a message source represent a key explanation of individuals’ attitude towards a sustainability-related message and the behavioural intention promoted through it.
Finally, the effect of message source on credibility and likeability was not moderated by participant’s level of cynicism. This finding, although unexpected, must be considered in the explorative perspective of the research question. The small amount of experimental research
available on cynicism within the field of communication does not encompass CSR-related
scenarios. Despite it was expected that participants’ cynicism would accurately repeat results from
more popular experiments on consumer scepticism (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Brønn & Vrioni,
2001; Forehand and Grier, 2003) presenting a significant moderation of the effect of message
source, results showed that this was not the case. Therefore, it is interesting to see that the level of
cynicism of an individual does not change how a message by a brand or by a public organization
26
Limitations and implications for future research
Some limitations must be taken into account for the current study. First, some dimension
investigated in this paper present little prior research: cynicism has been very rarely investigated in
experimental studies and often disregarded in favour of the closely-related scepticism. Future
research could address this area, measuring also the effect of behavioural scepticism on the
analysed variables. This would allow to confirm the current suppositions regarding a considerable
difference between the effect of cynicism and scepticism in sustainability-related communication.
As in every experimental study, sample represents another limitation. The use of convenience
sampling, mainly through social media and electronic word of mouth, resulted in majority of young
participants, with a higher educational background. This reduced considerably the number of older
adults with a lower education present in the sample and facilitated an overrepresentation of the
former socio-demographic group. Taken this under consideration, it is hard to generalize the
findings of this study to a wide population, as the external validity might be impacted by this.
The third limitation concerns the stimuli used for the experimental condition. First, only two
conditions (brand vs. public organization) were tested in this study. Including other manipulations
(non-governmental organizations, for example) could have yielded to different results and produced
interesting outcomes for policy makers and advertising practitioners. As individuals attribute higher
credibility to NGOs compared to brands when communicating sustainability-related practices, these
types of organizations might result overall highly likeable to the general public, and potentially
more credible to them, than governments-related organizations.
Furthermore, in the pre-test conducted for the selection of the two manipulations, elements such as
nationality of the participants, their level of knowledge about supranational public organizations
and regarding sustainability practices adopted by such brands and organizations could have
27
composed the pre-test questionnaire and their source might have shrunk the extent to which the
current results are generalizable to. In particular, brands for the pre-test were selected from the
Interbrand (2019) ranking which, according to its methodology, excludes companies who do not
have revenue from foreign countries, are not present in both Asia, Europe and North America and
have a negative economic profit on the longer term. Given the fact that the enormous amount of
companies available worldwide and their very different industries are hard to dilute in a very
precise and accurate manner, further studies can address this aspect. Future research might want to
investigate to what extent source effects of sustainability-related messages variate based on
different levels of popularity or wealth of the brand source, for example by adding several types of
brands in the manipulation phase. This could lead to deeper insight into whether the type of brand
source has an effect on the outcome of a CSR message and, eventually, to what extent.
In addition, the experimental conditions of this study presuppose a certain level of knowledge about
the HP brand and the UN organization. Such knowledge however may vary noticeably depending
on the participant’s country of residence. This means that replicating the same study in different
countries could potentially unveil different results based on cultural and social factors, consumers’
awareness or market penetration of the brand, and so on. These aspects suggest that it could be
interesting for future studies to replicate the present research only at national scope. The use of a
local brand and a national public organization, with a filtered sample of solely residents in the
country, may provide more significant results and insightful scenarios. For example, a replication
study conducted in the UK, using a domestic brand (i.e. Marmite) and public organization (i.e. the
Home Office) would provide results with higher scientific validity.
This study addressed the relatively unexplored differences between the effects of a
sustainability-related message communicated by a brand and by a public organization. The findings of the study
show valuable insight for future efforts in the promotion of sustainable and eco-friendly behaviours
28
sustainability should be communicating taking care the importance of the credibility of the message
source. Public organizations should focus on their trustworthy status in their communication, while
brands that want to communicate CSR should ensure that they are perceived as enough credible in
doing so. Otherwise they should first focus on changing that perception in the public. Finally, this
study opens possibilities towards future potential partnerships between the two types of sources, to
help each other reaching the effectiveness in sustainability-related communication.
References
Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of
customer-company identification: Expanding the role of relationship marketing. Journal of applied
psychology, 90(3), 574.
Amos, C., Holmes, G. & Strutton, D. (2008) Exploring the relationship between celebrity endorser
effects and advertising effectiveness: a quantitative synthesis of effect size. International Journal of
Advertising, 27(2), pp. 209–234.
Barr, S. (2016). Environment and society: Sustainability, policy and the citizen. Routledge.
Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking.
Academy of Management Review, 33, 122–136.10.5465
BBC (2020) Types of business organisations - National 5 Business management - BBC Bitesize.
Retrieved 31 January 2020, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zpx7gdm/revision/1
Becker-Olsen, K., Cudmore, B. & Hill, R. (2006) The impact of perceived corporate social
29
Belch, G., & Belch, M. (2015). Advertising and promotion: an integrated marketing
communications perspective (10th ed., global ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education.
Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2008). The role of ad likability in predicting an ad's campaign
performance. Journal of advertising, 37(2), 85-98.
Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1969). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of
message sources. Public opinion quarterly, 33(4), 563-576.
Brønn, P. S., & Vrioni, A. B. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and cause-related marketing:
an overview. International journal of Advertising, 20(2), 207-222.
Callcott, M. F., & Phillips, B. J. (1996). Observations: Elves make good cookies: Creating likable
spokes-character advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(5), 73-73.
Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality
and social Psychology, 37(8), 1387.
Chao, P., Wuhrer, G. & Werani, T. (2005) Celebrity and foreign brand name as moderators of
country-of-origin effects. International Journal of Advertising, 24(2), pp. 173–192.
Dahlén, M., Rosengren, S., & Törn, F. (2008). Advertising creativity matters. Journal of
Advertising Research, 48(3), 392-403.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1–13.
Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on public access to
environmental information and repealing (2003), Official Journal L41, p.27.
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
30
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1975). An attribution analysis of the effect of communicator
characteristics on opinion change: The case of communicator attractiveness. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 32(1), 136.
Eisend, M. (2003), “Is it Still Worth to be Credible? A Meta-Analysis of Temporal Patterns of
Source Credibility Effects in Marketing”, Association of Consumer Research Proceedings,October,
Toronto, Canada, forthcoming.
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.
Enderle, G. & Tavis, A.L. (1998) 'A balanced concept of the firm and the measurement of its
long-term planning and performance', Journal o/ Business Ethics, 17(11), 1129-1143
European Commission. (2002). COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION concerning
Corporate Social Responsibility: A business contribution to Sustainable Development [Ebook] (p.
5). Brussels. Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/communication-commission-concerning-corporate-social-responsibility-business-contribution_en
European Environmental Agency. (2016). Communication, environment and behaviour [Ebook]
(13th ed., pp. 4-15). Luxembourg. Retrieved from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/communication-environment-and-behaviour
Fombrun, C. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Fombrun, C. (2012). The Building Blocks of Corporate Reputation: Definitions, Antecedents,
Consequences. In The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Reputation.
Fombrun, C. J. and C. van Riel, B. M. 2004. Fame and Fortune: How Successful Companies
31
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.
Giffin, K. (1967). The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust
in the communication process. Psychological bulletin, 68(2), 104.
Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000). The impact of corporate credibility and
celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of advertising,
29(3), 43-54.
Goodland, R. (1995). The concept of environmental sustainability. Annual review of ecology and
systematics, 26(1), 1-24.
Goodsell, C. T. 2004. The Case for Bureaucracy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Guzmán, F., & Sierra, V. (2012). Public-private collaborations: branded public services? European
Journal of Marketing, 46(7/8), 994–1012.
Hartmann, P., Apaolaza Ibáñez, V., & Forcada Sainz, F. J. (2005). Green branding effects on
attitude: functional versus emotional positioning strategies. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,
23(1), 9-29.
Himmelfarb, S., & Arazi, D. (1974). Choice and source attractiveness in exposure to discrepant
messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(6), 516-527.
Hovland, C. I., and W. Weiss (1951), “The Influence of SourceCredibility on Communication Effectiveness”, Public OpinionQuarterly, 15, 635-650.
Irwin A, 1995 Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development
(Routledge, London)
Interbrand. (2019). Best Brands. Retrieved 8 January 2020, from
32
Joseph, W. B. (1982). The credibility of physically attractive communicators: A review. Journal of
advertising, 11(3), 15-24.
Kahle, L.R. & Homer, P.M. (1985) Physical attractiveness of the celebrity endorser: a
social adaptation perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), pp. 954–961.
Kanter, Donald L. and Philip H. Mirvis (1989), Cynical Americans: Living and Working in an
Age of Discontent and Disillusionment, San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers
Keh, H. T., & Xie, Y. (2009). Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions: The role of
trust, identification and commitment. Industrial Marketing Management, 38, 732–742.
Kelman, H. (1961). Processes of Opinion Change. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 25(1), 57–78.
Kelman, H. C., & Hovland, C. I. (1953). " Reinstatement" of the communicator in delayed
measurement of opinion change. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48(3), 327.
Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Kyoto,
Dec. 11, 1997, U.N.T.S. 30822.
Landrum, N. E. (2018). Stages of Corporate Sustainability: Integrating the Strong Sustainability
Worldview. Organization & Environment, 31(4), 287–313.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026617717456
Lii, Y. S., & Lee, M. (2012). Doing right leads to doing well: When the type of CSR and reputation
interact to affect consumer evaluations of the firm. Journal of business ethics, 105(1), 69-81.
Lutz, R. J., MacKenzie, S. B., & Belch, G. E. (1983). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of
advertising effectiveness: Determinants and consequences. ACR North American Advances.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of
33
MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a
mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of marketing
research, 23(2), 130-143.
Marin, L., Ruiz, S., & Rubio, A. (2009). The role of identity salience in the effects of corporate
social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 65–78.
Mohr, L. A., Eroǧlu, D., & Ellen, P. S. (1998). The development and testing of a measure of skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers' communications. Journal of consumer
affairs, 32(1), 30-55.
Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J. and Harris, K. E. (2001). Do Consumers Expect Companies to be Socially
Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying Behavior. The Journal of
Consumer Affairs, Summer, 45-72.
Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer response to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives.
Journal of Advertising, 36, 63–74.
Nguyen, B., Melewar, T. C., & Chen, J. (2013). A framework of brand likeability: an exploratory
study of likeability in firm-level brands. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 21(4), 368-390.
Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B., & Murphy, P. (2013). CSR practices and consumer perceptions.
Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1839–1851.
Osterhus, T. L. (1997). Pro-social consumer influence strategies: when and how do they work?.
Journal of marketing, 61(4), 16-29.
Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries (2020) Sceptic noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes, retrieved 31 January 2020, from
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/sceptic?q=sceptic
34
Pérez, R. C. (2009). Effects of perceived identity based on corporate social responsibility: The role
of consumer identification with the company. Corporate Reputation Review, 12, 177–191.
Poels, K., & Dewitte, S. (2006). How to capture the heart? Reviewing 20 years of emotion
measurement in advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(1), 18-37.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004) The persuasiveness of source credibility: a critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), pp. 243–281.
Qader, I.K.A., and Y.B. Zainuddin (2011), “The Impact of Media Exposure on Intention to Purchase Green Electronic Products Amongst Lecturers,” International Journal of Business and Management, 6 (3), 240–248.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer
reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of marketing Research, 38(2), 225-243.
Shaw, D., & Shiu, E. (2003). Ethics in consumer choice: a multivariate modelling approach.
European Journal of Marketing, 37(10), 1485–1498.
Simonin, B., & Ruth, J. (1998). Is a Company Known by the Company It Keeps? Assessing the
Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research,
35(1), 30–42.
Skard, S., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2014). Is publicity always better than advertising? The role of brand
reputation in communicating corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1),
149-160.
Smith, R. E., MacKenzie, S. B., Yang, X., Buchholz, L. M., & Darley, W. K. (2007). Modeling the
35
Strahilevitz, M. (2003). The effects of prior impressions of a firm's ethics on the success of a
cause-related marketing campaign: Do the good look better while the bad look worse?. Journal of
Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 11(1), 77-92.
Swaen, V., & Vanhamme, J. (2005). The use of corporate social responsibility arguments in
communication campaigns: does source credibility matter?. ACR North American Advances.
Upadhye, B., Das, G., & Varshneya, G. (2019). Corporate social responsibility: a boon or bane for
innovative firms? Journal of Strategic Marketing, 27(1), 50–66.
Visser, W. (2011). The age of responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the new DNA of business. John Wiley &
Sons.
Wæraas, A., & Byrkjeflot, H. (2012). Public sector organizations and reputation management: Five
problems. International Public Management Journal, 15(2), 186-206.
Wan, C., Shen, G. Q., & Choi, S. (2017). Experiential and instrumental attitudes: Interaction effect
of attitude and subjective norm on recycling intention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 50,
69-79.
Wilson, D. C., Rodic, L., Scheinberg, A., Velis, C. A., & Alabaster, G. (2012). Comparative
analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities. Waste Management & Research, 30(3), 237-254.
Wilson, E. J., & Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A
meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(2), 101.
Whittler, T.E. & Dimeo, J. (1991) Viewer’s reaction to racial cues in advertising
stimuli. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(6), pp. 37–46.
Wooden, R. (2008). The advertising discipline and social change. Journal of Advertising Research,
36
Yilmaz, C., Eser Telci, E., Bodur, M., & Eker Iscioglu, T. (2011). Source characteristics and
advertising effectiveness: The roles of message processing motivation and product category
knowledge. International Journal of Advertising, 30(5), 889-914.
Yoon, Y., Gürhan‐Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of consumer psychology, 16(4),
377-390.
Zhang, Y. & Buda, R. (1999) Moderating effects of need for cognition on responses to positively
versus negatively framed advertising messages. Journal of Advertising,
28(2), pp. 1–15.
Appendix A
Stimulus 1:
Brand sourceStimulus 2:
37
38
Appendix B
Pre-test questionnaire: Brands
Please rate the following brands on each of the three distinctions:
AXA
Very eco-unfriendly [] [] [] [] [] Very eco-friendly Very unattractive [] [] [] [] [] Very attractive
Very unfamiliar [] [] [] [] [] Very familiar
HP
Very eco-unfriendly [] [] [] [] [] Very eco-friendly Very unattractive [] [] [] [] [] Very attractive
Very unfamiliar [] [] [] [] [] Very familiar
PHILIPS
Very eco-unfriendly [] [] [] [] [] Very eco-friendly Very unattractive [] [] [] [] [] Very attractive
Very unfamiliar [] [] [] [] [] Very familiar
STARBUCKS
Very eco-unfriendly [] [] [] [] [] Very eco-friendly Very unattractive [] [] [] [] [] Very attractive
Very unfamiliar [] [] [] [] [] Very familiar
VISA
Very eco-unfriendly [] [] [] [] [] Very eco-friendly Very unattractive [] [] [] [] [] Very attractive
