No good deed goes unpunished?
A study on the influence of Cause-related Mark
eting and ethical
subsequent moral behavior of consumers
No good deed goes unpunished?
A study on the influence of Cause-related Marketing and ethical mindset on
the moral behavior of consumers
University of Groningen
Faculty of Business and Economics Msc Marketing Management Master Thesis
January ‘15
Supervisor: Dr. M.C. Leliveld
2nd supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ir. K. van Ittersum
Management Summary
The positive influence that Cause-related Marketing (CM) can have on firm- and brand evaluations has found quite some support in literature. Very little is however known about the effects that CM can have in seemingly unrelated domains. This research studies the potential negative effect that CM can have on moral behavior of consumers. As a contribution to the existing research on CM, a distinction is made between CM campaigns based on the conditionality of the donations, described as purchase-related CM and non-purchase-related CM. Purchase-related CM refers to campaigns where a donation is dependent on a customer purchase; the 'buy one, give one' type of donations. Non-purchase-related CM refers to campaigns in which a company makes its donations to a cause independent of consumer purchases. It differs from philanthropy by the fact that the donations are clearly communicated to consumers as part of the marketing strategy. An online survey was designed to measure consumer reactions to the different campaigns. The ethical mindset of consumers was expected to determine which campaign people evaluated best. People with a rule-based mindset, known for having a process focus, were expected to like purchase-related CM better as they were involved more in the donation process than with the non-purchase related campaign. People with an outcome-based mindset, known for judging mostly on the outcome of a situation, were expected to evaluate both campaigns almost equally as the outcomes of donations are equal. A slightly better attitude towards the non-purchase related campaign was however expected as the initiating company does not does not ask consumers to make a purchase before they donate. In this research, the ethical mindset was manipulated by the researcher. The study was done with a 2 (ethical mindset; rule based vs. outcome based) X 3 (CM campaign: purchase related vs. non-purchase related vs. control condition) between subject experimental design. 196 participants filled in the online survey carried out by KIEN, a Dutch research company. No significant results were found to support the interaction between mindset and CM campaign. Both CM campaigns were evaluated equally in both mindset conditions.
Preface
In September 2009 I started with my study Business Administration in Groningen. Eliminated by lottery from my first choice International Relations and International Organization, I first saw Business Administration merely as a rebound. It did not take long before my interest in the business grew and the study felt like a good fit. Looking back I think the elimination was a very convenient event for me. My passion for marketing started in 2010 when I took on a part time job as Student Brand Manager for Jillz in Groningen. The possibility to combine what I had learned in class with real practice was very exciting for me. It was therefore not surprising that the marketing courses were my favorite. My interest in foreign affairs and ethics were still present in the background. A minor Development studies was therefore a perfect opportunity to discover the field of IRIO during one semester. Although this period was very interesting, I was happy to start with specialization course Marketing afterwards. The choice for my master in Marketing was not very suprising, but the fact that I would be able to combine my two biggest fields of interest in my Master Thesis, was. The theme group Cause Marketing was therefore my first choice. The past 4 months have been interesting, exciting and sometimes also quite challenging, but I am proud to present the result of this thesis.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank a few people that have helped me during the writing process. First of course my wonderful supervisor, Dr. Marijke Leliveld, who has inspired me with her vision on the ethical side of Cause Marketing. Besides her very useful Veni, Marijke has helped me a lot during the entire process. Constructive feedback aligned with nice conversations made me enjoy the meetings, and so did the -often present- Celebrations. I would also like to thank my thesis group comrades for the support and helpful insights. And lastly with this short story I want to express my gratitude to my boyfriend, my parents, sisters and friends for their mental support and patience during my off-moments.
Table of contents
Management Summary ... 3 Preface ... 5 Literature review ... 7 Cause-related Marketing ...7 Ethical Mindset ... 11Moral consumer behavior ... 12
MSI... 13
Interaction between mindset and CM type ... 15
Methodology ... 17
Participants and design ... 17
Procedure ... 17 Results ... 20 Purchase decision ... 20 Campaign evaluation ... 20 Generosity ... 21 Moral Self-Image ... 24 Discussion... 25 Appendix A ... 33
CM campaigns and control campaign. ... 33
Appendix B. ... 35
Survey ... 35
Appendix C ... 40
Literature review
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become an integral part of many business strategies worldwide. While in 2008 only 9% of all public companies included CSR information in their financial report, this grew out to 51% in 2013. Among the world’s largest 250 companies, 93% reported their CSR practices in 2013 (KPMG, 2013). This increased importance of CSR in the business environment is not surprising. On the one hand, there is the emerging pressure of the public that expects firms to behave socially towards all stakeholders (Blowfield & Murray, 2008). On the other hand, many firms have discovered the benefits tied to CSR policies, such as enhanced product evaluation via an overall positive firm evaluation (Brown and Dacin, 1997), increased bonds between firms and stakeholders (Maignan and Ferrell, 2004), increased customer loyalty (Maignan, Ferrell and Hult, 1999) and a positive link to financial firm performance (Orlitzky, Schmidt and Rynes, 2003). Over the last decades CSR programs have improved the corporate image of multiple corporations like Microsoft, Google and The Walt Disney Company (Forbes, 2014). Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) found that corporations with a high CSR reputation are evaluated more favorably. In fact, based on 100.000 interviews worldwide the Reputation Institute states that 60% of consumer’s willingness to buy from a company and recommend it to others can be traced back to an increased CSR reputation (2013). CSR is described as “the commitment of business to contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees, their families, the local community and society at large to improve their quality of life” (WBCSD, 2004, from: Pomering, Johnson and Noble, 2013). It goes beyond legal constraints that protect the impact of companies on society, and has economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic components (Pirsch et al., 2007). Not all companies involve in CSR practices, and among those that do big differences exist.
Cause-related Marketing
(CM). CM is described as “a commercial activity in which businesses and charities form a partnership with each other to market an image or product, for mutual benefit” (Demetriou, Papasolomou and Vrontis, 2010 p. 266). In order to clearly distinct CM from other forms of CSR, Berglind and Nakata (2005) emphasize that CM is used to enhance the market position of a firm and that a CM program is a publicized collaboration between the firm and cause. CM has known a significant increase in popularity over the last two decades. In North America alone, funds generated by CM have increased from $816 million in 2002 to $1.78 billion in 2013 (IEG consulting group, 2013). An example of a CM program is the partnership between Pepsico and the World Food Programme. For each pack of Quaker cereals sold, the firm donates a meal to a child in Benin. In this CM program the donation is dependent on the purchase behavior of consumers, and therefore a revenue generating exchange. As Hoeffler And Keller (2002) argue, CM does not have to be tied to a specific purchase but can also include other forms of donations to a cause. An example hereof is the partnership between bookseller Barnes & Noble and the Anti-Defamation League, a worldwide anti-Semitism organization. The campaign involved lectures and readings on racial tolerance for children, sponsored by Barnes & Noble. This CM campaign does not depend on consumer purchase, but it does fall under the definition of CM. In general, CM campaigns positively influence consumer attitudes towards the company or brand and increase its purchase likelihood (Brown and Dacin, 1997). It is therefore not surprising that the use of CM has increased significantly over the last 2 decades. CM seems like a true win-win situation, but is this really the case?
dissertation, Newman (2014) is one of the first researchers to find evidence that CSR initiatives can have a negative effect on moral consumer behavior. With a series of five studies, Newman (2014) found support that consumers vicariously balance their moral behavior on the behavior of a brand they strongly identify with. To illustrate, participants who read an article about the CSR efforts of a brand, and identified strongly with that brand, were less generous in a subsequent task than participants who read a neutral or negative story about the brand. This presents an overlooked negative effect of CSR practices for society. Research on the effect of the purchase of a CM-product on moral behavior is however largely missing. As many firms nowadays involve in Cause-related Marketing, the possible long-term consequences of these campaigns for society need to be assessed. The focus of this paper will therefore be on the potential effect of Cause-related Marketing on subsequent moral behavior. This way, the thesis can expand the current knowledge about CM and may have implications for marketers and policy makers.
Differences within CM campaigns
donates to charity for each product that is sold. Non-purchase-related CM refers to the non-conditional type of CM, in which donations are not directly linked to sales.
In other words, purchase-related CM refers to a mutual beneficial partnership between a firm and a non-profit organization, in which donations to the charity are directly tied to product sales. Non-purchase related CM refers to a mutual beneficial partnership between a firm and a non-profit organization, in which donations are not tied to sales, but are done independent of consumer purchases.
CM campaign appeal
yielded better results than the conditional version. This gives reason to assume that a non-purchase related CM campaign is appreciated more by consumers than a non-purchase related campaign, as it is received with lower skepticism. However, in the study by Lii and Lee (2011), the two CM conditions are compared with different donation sizes. A donation by Nokia was either $500 per phone sold or $100.000 as a single donation. The difference in donation amounts could affect the perception of respondents towards the two campaigns. Their research therefore is therefore not suitable for making a valid comparison between a purchase-related and a non-purchase-related campaign. This study will therefore focus on the comparison between two CM campaigns that differ only in their conditionality of purchase- and non-purchase-relatedness. That means, the fact that the donation of a firm is dependent on consumer purchase or not. To my concern, this study is the first to experimentally compare the two types of CM campaigns in terms of conditionality, while keeping the other factors constant.
Ethical Mindset
therefore that people with a rule-based mindset, who are process-minded, will prefer CM campaigns in which they themselves play a role in the donation process. For people with an outcome-based mindset, it is not the process but the outcome that counts. Therefore the expectation is that no significant different in preference is expected for people with that mindset. The hypothesis derived from these predictions is as follows:
H1: People with a rule-based mindset will evaluate a purchase-related CM campaign better than a non-purchase-related CM campaign.
Moral consumer behavior
Moral licensing
Relating this theory with Cause-related Marketing, one could argue that buying a CM product provides people with moral credits, as the campaign (in)directly provides a donation to a cause. This idea is strengthened by the finding that people receive a warm-glow after purchasing a CM product (Andrews et al., 2014). When people perform immoral behavior in response to prior moral behavior, this is referred to as moral licensing. An example of moral licensing is found in the study of Mazar and Zhong (2010) in which participants who purchased ‘green’ products cheated and stole more than participants that purchased regular products. Furthermore, Khan and Dhar (2006) found that participants donated less money to charity after they had recalled good deeds. Even when participants only had to imagine that they had conducted a good deed in the past, their donation behavior decreased. These researches show that moral licensing can even occur in a different domain than the domain in which earlier moral behavior took place. One could therefore expect that people who have purchased a CM product will behave less moral in a subsequent situation than people who did not purchase a CM product. In this study, generosity will be used as the measure for moral behavior, as it is a commonly used variable in moral licensing research (Khan & Dhar, 2006).
MSI
effect via a change in people’s MSI was found in by Cornelissen et al. (2013). However, this was moral licensing effect was only found for people with an outcome-based mindset. The expectation is therefore that the purchase of a CM product builds up moral credits, and with that a higher MSI, which allows moral licensing to occur.
Thinking in terms of the outcome of their decision, allows people to balance between pursuing self-interested behavior and serving others (Mazar & Ariely, 2006). In other words, when there is a conflict between self-interest and acting ethically, this mind-set allows for a balancing act over time, in order to make an acceptable compromise. Based on the findings of Cornelissen et al. (2013) I expect that a CM purchase will increase a person’s MSI, which will lead to immoral behavior for people with an outcome-based mindset. This can be compared to people that did not buy a CM, of whom no increase in MSI and therefore no licensing is expected.
H2: People with an outcome-based mindset that purchased a CM product will behave less moral than those who did not purchase a CM product.
A rule-based mind-set is based on principles that bring forth duties and obligations; people with that mindset base their decisions on conformity to a moral norm (Monin & Jordan, 2009). Following moral rules does not allow for compromising and balancing between ethical and unethical behavior. According to Albarracin and Wyer (2000), people with a rule-based mind-set resolve ethical conflicts by using consistency as their directory. For example, individuals that were trying to stay in shape ate more unhealthy food after a bad work-out session than people that did a good work-out. This exemplifies that people are likely to repeat previous value conflicts on following occasions, even if these occasions are not related. It is therefore expected that people with a rule-based mindset do not use moral balancing as a way to maintain a good self-concept, but base their behavior on consistency. If the purchase of a CM product indeed increases a person’s MSI, I therefore expect that people in the rule-based mindset will also perform moral behavior in a subsequent task. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Interaction between mindset and CM type
Based on the literature of mindsets (Cornelissen et al., 2013) in combination with the two distinct CM types formulated in this thesis, I expect an interaction effect between the two variables on the dependent variable ‘generosity’. People with a rule-based mindset focus mostly on the process of the donation, it is expected that they will react even stronger to the purchase-related CM campaign, in which their purchase is connected to a donation. As rule-based people are consistent in their behavior, it is expected that they are even more generous in the purchase-related condition than in the non-purchase-related condition. The following hypothesis is formulated based on this prediction:
H5: People with a rule-based mindset are more generous after purchase of a purchase-related CM product than after purchase of a non-purchase-purchase-related CM product.
In order to check whether the generosity really depends on the ‘good’ deed of purchasing a CM product, it is good to test CM campaigns against a neutral campaign. This can be used as a control condition, which makes it possible to check if the CM ads differ from the neutral ad.
H5b: People with a rule-based mindset are more generous after purchase of a CM product than after purchase of a neutral product.
H6: People with an outcome-based mindset are less generous after purchase of a purchase-related CM product than after purchase of a non-purchase-purchase-related CM product.
For the interaction effect of the outcome-based mindset with CM in general I also predict the a difference with a neutral ad.
H6b: People with an outcome-based mindset are less generous after purchase of a CM product than after purchase of a neutral product.
In order to better understand the relationship between the different variables, a visual reflection of the concepts is presented in figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual model of the current thesis.
Methodology
The goal of this study is to test the effect of two different types of CM campaigns (purchase-related and non-purchase-(purchase-related) and ethical mindset on purchase behavior and subsequent moral behavior. Moral behavior will be operationalized in terms of generosity, by means of a dictator game. Moral Self Image is proposed as a mediator in the relationship between purchase behavior and generosity. In order to test the hypotheses, an experimental study was performed in the form of an online survey.
Participants and design
A 2 (outcome-based vs. rule-based ethical mindset) x 3 (purchase-related vs. non-purchase related vs. control campaign) between-subjects factorial design was used for this study. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions. A big Dutch shoe retailer named vanHaren was chosen as the subject in the ad manipulations, based on its high ranking on the register of ‘Indispensable Brands’ of the Dutch market (Eurib, 2014). The related cause was the donation of shoes for children in need worldwide, through a partnership with a relatively unknown but acknowledged non-profit organization called Join!forkids. The responses to the survey were gathered by KIEN, a Dutch market research institute. A total of 196 of their panel members received a small monetary compensation (€0,90) for completing the survey. The sample consisted of 106 females (54.3%) and 90 males (45.7%). The dataset gives a trustworthy representation of the Dutch population responsible for daily groceries, aged higher than 18. A total of 28.4% of the respondents were at the age of 60 or older, 14.7% between the age of 18-29, and the rest of the respondents was aged between 30 and 60 years old.
Procedure
concentrate on one of their own principles (rule-based mind-set) or on a decision where the outcome (outcome-based mind-set) was decisive.
After that, participants were presented with a fictional advertising campaign of Dutch shoe retailer vanHaren. Three ads were designed for this study. One ad featured purchase-related CM (‘Buy one, give one. For each pair of shoes you buy, a pair of shoes is donated to a child in need.’), one featured non-purchase-related CM (‘vanHaren donates shoes to children in need’) and one neutral campaign (‘Holland chooses vanHaren’) served as the control condition. To ensure validity, the three campaigns had a similar layout. Both CM campaigns mentioned a total donation of 50.000 shoes in a year. In the purchase-related condition this number was the expected donation, in the non-purchase-related condition this number referred to a completed donation. The control condition was completely free of CM features. Based on the advertisement, participants needed to choose whether or not they wanted to buy shoes at vanHaren. The purchase decision serves as a mediator between the two IV’s (mindset and CM campaign) on subsequent moral behavior.
Results
In this section, the hypotheses will be accepted or rejected based on quantitative data analyses.
Purchase decision
Based on the advertisement that people were presented with, participants needed to choose whether or not they would like to buy shoes at vanHaren, by answering with a yes or no. The overall frequencies were as follows: 130 people (66,3%) said ‘yes’ and 65 respondents (33,2%) said ‘no’, to the question whether they wanted to buy shoes at vanHaren. In order to check whether type of campaign and mindset had an influence on the decision to buy the shoes (yes or no), a factorial analysis of variance was performed. The two independent variables are type of campaign (3 levels; purchase-related CM, non-purchase-related CM and control) and mindset (2 levels; rule-based and outcome-based mindset). Purchase decision is changed into an interval variable of 0 (no purchase) to 1 (purchase) in order to be used as the dependent variable of this analysis. With this ANOVA, I tested if purchase intentions of differed between the different conditions.
Across the total sample of 196 participants, no significant differences were found for any of the effects. For the main effect of campaign type on purchase decision, the results were F(1,190)= 0.05, p= 0.95. There was also no significant main effect found for mindset F(1,190)= 0.97, p= 0.33. Furthermore, the interaction between mindset and type of campaign was not significant either, as no difference on purchase decision was found F(1,190)= 0.79, p= 0.46.
Campaign evaluation
In order to test whether there is a difference in attitude towards the ad between the campaign and mindset conditions, a factorial analysis of variance is performed. A two-level purchase decision variable is added in this analysis as a third independent factor in order to provide more insights on possible differences.
should be rejected. People with a rule-based mindset did not evaluate the purchase-related CM campaign better than the non-purchase-related CM campaign.
No main effect was found of mindset on campaign attitude F(1,183)= 0.05, p= 0,82, neither was there an interaction between mindset and campaign type F(2,183)= 0.274, p= 0.761. Not surprisingly, purchase decision was significantly related to ad likability. People who indicated to purchase the shoes were liking the ad more (M=4.65, SD=1.1) than people who did not buy the shoes (M= 3.29, SD= 1.25), F(1,183)= 59.75, p<0.001. Although being not statistically significant, a trend can be seen in the interaction between type of campaign and purchase decision F(1,183)= 1.77, p=0,173. Evaluating the means more closely shows that the difference in likability between buyers and non-buyers is larger in the control campaign than in the two CM campaigns. Between people that did and did not buy shoes, the mean difference is 1.7 in the control condition and approximately 1.1 in the two CM conditions. This weakly indicates that people in the control condition are more extreme in their judgment of ad likability. This finding is somewhat surprising as more extreme judgments towards CM campaigns were expected than towards a normal marketing campaign. See table 1 for an overview of the means.
Type of campaign Purchase decision Mean Standard Deviation
Purchase related No Yes 3.81 4.80 1.20 0.98 Non-Purchase related No Yes 3.61 4.88 1.09 1.12 Control No Yes 2.54 4.27 1.10 1.12 Table 1. Means of the ‘ad likability scale’ for campaign type and purchase decision Generosity
The following values were found. Main effect of campaign type F(2,174)= 0.08, p= 0.92. Main effect of mindset F(1,174)= 0.24, p=0,626 and main effect of purchase decision F(1,174)= 0.04, p= 0.85. Interaction between campaign type and purchase decision was F(2,174)= 1.399, p=0.25, a three-way interaction between campaign type, mindset and purchase decision was F(2,174)= 1.458, p=0.236.
In order to know more about the distribution of the sample, I looked at the frequency of the amounts between €0 and €10 that were given away. Of the 186 respondents that answered the dividing game, 129 people (65,8%) gave away €5,- to the other person. 14 people (7.1%) gave €4,- away. The other values are all mentioned between 1 and 7 times in decreasing frequency towards the extreme values. 8 people however, (4.1%) gave the entire €10 away to the other person, against 3 people that gave €0 away to the other person.
This shows that there was limited variety in people’s generosity, but that there were some extreme cases. Therefore, I controlled for outliers by looking at cases with a standardized residual larger than 3. A similar ANOVA without these cases yielded a marginally significant 3-way interaction between campaign type, mindset and purchase decision F(2,173)= 2.12, p= 0,123.
When looking more closely at the pattern of this interaction, there are some interesting observations (see table 2).
Type of campaign Mindset Purchase
Outcome No Yes 4.42 5.05 1.68 1.05 Table 2. Generosity means of the 3-way interaction.
As the 3-way interaction is only marginally significant, the findings should be interpreted with caution. A simple contrast analyses could explain to what extent the results may be interpreted. When looking at the means to say something about the second hypothesis, the focus is only on people with an outcome-based mindset in the table. The expectation was these people would be less generous when they did purchased shoes in either of the two CM conditions, than when they did not decide to purchase shoes in a CM condition. In the purchase-related CM condition, the generosity was indeed lower when purchase decision was Yes than No (yes= 4.70, no= 5.25), but in the non-purchase-related CM condition, this was not the case (Yes= 5.72, no= 4.75). So, the second hypothesis should be rejected.
The third hypothesis was about people with a rule-based mindset. As they are expected to behave consistently in subsequent moral situations, I hypothesized that those who bought shoes in a CM campaign will behave more moral (so more generous) than those who did not purchase shoes in a CM campaign. Although not significant, the means were indeed higher in both the purchase-related CM campaign (yes= 5.33, no= 5.00) and the non-purchase-related CM campaign (yes= 5.28, no= 5.00).
Rule-based mindset combined with positive purchase decision
Outcome-based mindset combined with positive purchase decision
Again, in this section only participants that purchased shoes are considered in the analyses. The fifth hypothesis regards the prediction that people with an outcome-based mindset will be less generous in the purchase-related CM condition than in the non-purchase-related CM condition. The means in table 2 indicate M= 4.70 (purchase-related condition) and M= 5.72 (non-purchase-related condition). So, H5 is partially supported. For the last hypothesis, H5b, the table shows that people with an outcome-based mindset are not less generous after they bought shoes based on CM ads (M= 4.70 and M= 5.72) than after purchase based on the control ad (M= 5.05). So, no support was found for H5b.
Moral Self-Image
In order to analyze if MSI is the explaining variable for the marginally significant effects found in the generosity section, a 3 (campaign type) x 2 (mindset) x 2 (purchase decision) ANOVA was done. This test showed no significant main and no interaction effects. The main effect of campaign type was not significant F(2, 177)= 0.235, p= 0,791 with the following means: purchase related condition (M=5.037, SD= 0.918); non-purchase related condition (M= 4.957, SD= 0.646) and control condition (M= 5.06, SD= .776). For mindset, the main effect was F(1,177)= 2.218, p= 0.138.
As a linear regression showed that ad likability scale seemed to influence MSI positively B=0.203, p<0.001 while this is not an effect of interest, I chose to use this variable as a covariate to control for its effect. When controlling for the ad likability scale, the model becomes somewhat more significant. The main effect of campaign type is now F(2, 176)= 1.82, p= 0,165 and the main effect of mindset is F(1,175)= 2.30, p= 0.131. Although only a trend, the rule-based mindset had a slightly higher overall mean (M= 5.10, SD= 0,70) than the outcome-based mindset (M= 4.92, SD= 0.85).
Discussion
The aim of this study was to research whether Cause-related Marketing campaigns could have an effect on people’s moral behavior in an unrelated to the campaign. As the study by Newman (2014) was one of the first to show that CSR initiatives can negatively influence subsequent moral behavior, the current study built forth upon this research by focusing specifically on the effect of CM campaigns in moral behavior context. To my knowledge, CM campaigns have not earlier been subject of experimental research on moral behavior. With substantial increase of CM expenditures over the last two decades, one can imagine the relevance of researching the effects of CM in a broader domain. While Newman (2014) found evidence to assume that moral behavior is likely to be balanced by the performance of immoral behavior, Cornelissen et al. (2013) provided the interesting insight that it depends on people’s moral mindset whether people act via moral balancing or moral consistency. As the interaction between CM and ethical mindset has not earlier been researched, the thesis touches a new line of research. CM campaign, mindset and purchase decision did however not have a significant effect on generosity, nor did MSI account for any mediating effects. Still, there are several interesting findings from this study that will be discussed below.
CM campaign appeal
Different types of CM
Between the two types of CM campaigns, purchase-related and non-purchase-related, no differences were found regarding the advertising appeal. Remember the research by Goldstein and colleagues (2007), who found that a hotel’s donation behavior that is independent from the behavior of guests, yields higher participation rates than when donation behavior was dependent on guest participation. The fact that the non-purchase-related CM campaign in the current study was evaluated equal to the purchase-non-purchase-related campaign, could be found in the size of the donation level. In the study by Goldstein et al. (2007) the possibility existed that the total hotel donation would in the end be very low, in the case that only few guests participated. In the case of vanHaren however, the donation is tied to the sales of a basic need –shoes–, which ensures a steady number of sales and thus donations. This finding implies that there is no immediate reason to choose non-purchase-related CM over purchase-non-purchase-related CM, if the product category has a rather steady sales number and the CM campaign is reasonable.
Interaction effects of mindset and CM campaign on generosity
(Tenbrunsel et al. 2010). Although not mediated by an increase in MSI, the finding implies that the purchase-related CM campaign gives people the most moral credentials to morally license their behavior with less generosity. MSI was not a significant factor in the results of this study.
Lack of statistical power through equal generosity
The fact that such limited results were found on the generosity variable, could possibly be explained by the sample. The deviation in the generosity measure was very small, to say the least. Less than 10% of the participants divided the money in such a way that they kept more money to themselves than they gave away. In order to explain why people did not choose their self-interest over others might be explained by the concept of reciprocity. Rand, Greene, and Nowak (2012) have suggested that prosocial cooperation may act as our default state because cooperation is not only advantageous, but also critical for the societal norm of reciprocity (Nowak & Sigmund, 2005). As the sample consists of a panel of members that regularly participate in survey for KIEN, it is possible that these people were lead more by reciprocity than if data is gathered on incidental basis. The behavior of these panel members could be driven by a wish to maintain societal order by which all members reap greater overall benefits (Stanovich & West, 1998).
Limitations
The current study suffers from several limitations that could explain why the results were limited. Although theoretically argumented, no evidence was found for an effect between the independent variables and subsequent moral behavior in terms of generosity
for errors. The emotions that are present during hypothetical moral decision making are certainly less intense than the emotions in real-life (Teper, 2011). It is therefore possible that the lack of results can be ascribed to this error. This provides an insight that future research measuring MSI and moral balancing is likely better of with true experiments than with online surveys.
Implications
The fact that no significant difference was found between the two CM campaigns provides some implications for managers and people using CM. The fact that the two campaigns were evaluated equally positive provides insights that the conditionality of a campaign does not lead to negative results per se. Also, with regards to reciprocity, the non-purchase-related campaign stated that vanHaren had already donated 50.000 shoes last year, whilst the purchase-related campaign hoped to donate 50.000 shoes next year. Although there was a difference between accomplished donations and aspired donations in the two CM campaigns, this did not affect the likability of the ad. This finding is quite exciting, as most existing research comparing CSR initiatives discourage managers to use purchase-related CM (Pirsch et al., 2007). Also research by Lii and Lee (2011) and Goldstein et al. (2007) promote more philanthropic types of CSR over purchase-related CM. However, none of the researches had equalized all factors of the two types of campaigns when comparing them. With the design of the CM manipulation big emphasis was placed on the equal layout, picture and size of the campaign in order to maximize the validity. The fact that no difference was found on ad likability when only conditionality of the campaign was manipulated, implies that researchers may have over-estimated the difference in campaigns. The most important implication of this study is therefore that managers have more freedom to choose how they want to fill in their CM campaigns.
Reference list:
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918
Andrews, M., Luo, X., Fang, Z. & Aspara, J. (2014) Cause Marketing Effectiveness and the Moderating Role of Price Discounts. Journal of Marketing, 78 (6), 120-142.
Aquino, K. & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423-1440.
Barone, M., Norman, A. & Miyazaki, A. (2007). Consumer response to retailer use of cause-related marketing: Is more fit better? Journal of Retailing, 83, 437-445.
Bea, J. & Cameron, G. (2006). Conditioning effect of prior reputation on perception of corporate giving. Public Relation Review, 32 (2), 144-150.
Benabou, R. & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review, 96(5). 1652-1678.
Berglind, M., & Nakata, C. (2005). Cause related marketing: More bunk than bang?. Business horizons, 48, 443-453.
Bhattacharya, C. B., and Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: when, why and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47, 9-24. Blowfield, M. & Murray, A. (2008). Corporate responsibility: A critical introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing. 61, 68-84.
Campbell, E. Q. (1964). The internalization of moral norms. Sociometry, 27(4), 391–412. Cheron, E., Kohlbacher, F. & Kusamu, K. (2012). The effects of brand-cause fit campaign duration on consumer perception of cause related marketing in japan. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(5), 357-368.
Demetriou, M., Papasolomou, I. & Vrontis , D. (2010). Cause Related Marketing: Building the corporate image whilst supporting worldwide causes. Journal of Brand Management, 17, 266-278.
Demetriou, M., & Papasolomou, I. (2011). Cause Related Marketing: Building the Corporate Image through Longterm Alliances with Non-profit Organisations. (No. 316). Academic Public
Administration Studies Archive-APAS.
Dietvorst, R. , Riezebos, R. ‘EURIB Top 100 onmisbare merken 2013’ Eurib.nl
Domestos, Unilever 2014. http://www.domestos.co.uk/article/category/835606/our-mission
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fishbach, A. and Dhar, R. (2005). Effect of perceived goal progress on choice. Journal of consumer research, (32) 370-377.
Forbes, (2014). http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndill/2014/12/08/the-companies-with-the-best-csr-reputations/
Frank, R. (1988). Passions Within Reason: The Strategic Role of Emotions. New York: W.W. Norton.
Gino, F., Gu, J., & Zhong, C. B. (2009). Contagion or restitution? When bad apples can motivate ethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1299-1302.
Goldstein, N. J., Griskevicius, V. & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Invoking social norms: A social psychology perspective on improving hotel’s linen-reuse programs. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 148(2), 145-150.
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B. & Griskevicius, V. (2008) A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of consumer Research,
35(3), 472-482.
IEG Consulting group (2013). http://www.sponsorship.com/iegsr/2013/01/07/2013-Sponsorship-Outlook--Spending-Increase-Is-Dou.aspx
Jordan, J., Mullen, E. & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). Striving for the moral self: The effects of recalling past moral actions on future moral behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 701-713.
Khan, U. & Dhar, R. (2006). Licensing effect in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 259-266.
The KPMG Survey of Corporate responsibility reporting 2013,
http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/corporatere sponsibility/Documents/corporate-responsibility-reporting-survey-2013.pdf
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C. & Hult, G. T. (1999). Corporate Citizenship: Cultural antecedents and business benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 455-469.
Maignan, I. & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3-19.
Mazar, N., Amir, O. & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: a theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, (45). 633-644
Mazar, N., & Zhong, C.B. (2010). Do green products make us better people? Psychological Science, 21, 494-498.
Miller, R. M., Hannikainen, I., & Cushman, F. A. (2014). Bad actions or bad outcomes? Differentiating affective contributions to the moral condemnation of harm. Emotion, 14, 573-587
Newman, K. (2014). The influence of Corporate Social Responsibility efforts on the moral behavior of consumers. Dissertation submitted to the University of Arizona.
Nisan, M. and Horenczyk (1990). Moral Balance: the effect of prior behavior on decision in moral conflict. British Journal of Social Psychology. (29) 29-42.
Rand, D. G., Greene, J. D., & Nowak, M. A. (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489, 427–430
Pirsch, J., Gupta, S. & Grau, S. (2007). A framework for understanding Corporate Social Responsibility Programs as a continuum: an Exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics, (70) 125-140
Pomering, A., Johnson, L. & Noble, G. (2013). Advertising corporate social responsibility: results from an experimental manipulation of key message variables. Corporate Communications: an international journal, 18 (2), 249-263.
Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (2) 225-243 Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 127, 161–188.
Tenbrunsel, A., Jordan, J., Gino, F. & Leliveld, M. (2010). Moral compensation and the environment: Affecting individuals’ moral intentions through how they see themselves as moral. Presented at the Academy of Management, Montreal (QC), Canada, August 2010. Teper, R., Zhong, C. and Inzlicht, M. (2014). How Emotions Shape Moral Behavior: Some Answers (and Questions) for the Field of Moral Psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass : 1–14
Varadarajan, P. R. and Menon, A. (1988). Cause Related Marketing: A co-alignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58-74.
Appendix A
CM campaigns and control campaign.
Non-purchase related CM campaign
Appendix B.
SurveyDummyvraag (zonder antwoorden) Tekst 1 of tekst 2 tonen
1. Dit is wellicht een ander type onderzoek dan u gewend bent. Mogelijk is het voor u niet altijd direct duidelijk waarom we bepaalde vragen stellen. We vragen u alles aandachtig te lezen en de vragen naar waarheid te beantwoorden.
Voordat de vragenlijst begint volgt eerst een uitleg.
Tekst 1: RULE BASED MINDSET
Sommige keuzes worden gemaakt vanuit bepaalde principes die mensen hebben. Mensen willen zich op een bepaalde manier gedragen, ook al kan het verleidelijk zijn om het tegenovergestelde te doen. De reden waarom men zich zo gedraagt, komt door bepaalde principes of regels die ze volgen. Een principe is een zelfgekozen regel over hoe je leeft. Via school, opvoeding of de omgeving kunnen deze principes zijn aangeleerd. ‘Het hoort zo’. Voorbeelden kunnen zijn:
- Het niet weggooien van een snoeppapiertje op straat
- Opstaan voor een ouder persoon in de bus
- Niet vreemdgaan, ook al zou de partner er niet achter komen
- Altijd op tijd komen voor afspraken
Het gaat hier om hoe het gedrag zelf is, dus niet zozeer om wat het gedrag tot gevolg heeft.
Neemt u de tijd om stil te staan bij één van uw eigen principes. Klik op ‘volgende vraag’ om verder te gaan.
Tekst 2: OUTCOME BASED MINDSET
Sommige keuzes worden gemaakt vanwege de positieve gevolgen van die keuze. Een keuze kan positieve gevolgen hebben voor de persoon zelf, of voor anderen. Soms doet men iets dat gunstig is voor anderen, ook al is dat misschien voor henzelf minder voordelig. Het kan ook zijn dat mensen een keuze maken die voor henzelf het meest gunstig is. Er wordt een afweging gemaakt waarbij de uitkomst van de
beslissing de doorslag geeft. Voorbeelden hiervan zijn:
- Besluiten om een ander te helpen met verhuizen, ook al bent u daardoor uw vrije zaterdag kwijt.
- Uw auto uitlenen aan een ander, ook al bent u bezorgd dat er iets met de auto gebeurt.
- Besluiten om naar de bioscoop te gaan en te genieten van uw vrije avond, alhoewel een collega u om hulp heeft gevraagd.
Het gaat hier dus niet zozeer om hoe het gedrag zelf is, maar wat het gedrag tot
gevolg heeft.
Neemt u de tijd om stil te staan bij de uitkomst van een beslissing die u eerder heeft gemaakt.
Wanneer u klaar bent klikt u op ‘volgende vraag’.
Afbeelding 1, 2 of 3 tonen
2. Hierna volgt een advertentie. Bekijk deze goed.
Stel, u bent op zoek naar nieuwe schoenen en u heeft in het verleden al eens schoenen gekocht bij vanHaren die u goed zijn bevallen. Zou u op basis van deze advertentie deze keer uw schoenen bij vanHaren kopen?
O Ja
O Nee
O Niet van toepassing, ik heb de afbeelding niet kunnen zien -> einde onderzoek
3. [Afbeelding 1] [Afbeelding 2] [Afbeelding 3]
Hierboven ziet u nogmaals de advertentie. In hoeverre bent u het met onderstaande stellingen eens? Kolomkoppen (opties): Helemaal niet mee eens (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Helemaal mee eens (7) Rijen:
a) Ik vind de advertentie van vanHaren interessant b) Ik vind de advertentie van vanHaren leuk
Vraagtekst afhankelijk van antwoord v2
4. U heeft zojuist aangegeven dat u [wel | geen] schoenen bij vanHaren zou kopen . Hieronder staan enkele eigenschappen. Kunt u voor elk van deze eigenschappen aangeven hoe u zich nu voelt?
Ik voel me nu…
Kolomkoppen (opties): veel minder … dan ik zou willen zijn (1) (2) (3) (4) precies zo …
als ik wil zijn (5) (6) (7) (8)
veel meer … dan ik zou willen zijn (9) Rijen: a) Verzorgend b) Medelevend c) Rechtvaardig d) Vriendelijk e) Gul f) Hardwerkend g) Hulpvaardig h) Eerlijk i) Aardig
5. Voor deze vraag wordt u gekoppeld aan een andere respondent in dit onderzoek. U krijgt elkaar verder niet te zien of te spreken. Het is mogelijk om met dit onderdeel extra beloning te verdienen bovenop de normale beloning die u krijgt voor deelname.
Er zijn twee rollen: 1. De verdeler 2. De ontvanger
U bent één keer de verdeler en één keer de ontvanger. Als verdeler mag u een bedrag tussen u en de ontvanger verdelen. Als ontvanger doet u niets, u krijgt hierover geen vragen: de verdeler beslist of u iets ontvangt.
Deze opdracht is volledig anoniem – niemand zal weten met wie hij/zij gekoppeld was.
Alleen hele bedragen invullen
6. U bent nu de verdeler en u krijgt €10,- om te verdelen tussen u en de andere deelnemer (de ontvanger).
Als verdeler beslist u hoeveel van de €10 u aan de ontvanger wilt geven. Dit mag elk bedrag zijn van €0 tot €10 in stappen van €1 (dus geen cijfer na de komma). De ontvanger heeft hierop geen invloed, wat u beslist wordt uitgevoerd.
Voorbeeld 1: U beslist als verdeler dat de ontvanger €8 krijgt. Dan houdt u zelf €2. Voorbeeld 2: U beslist als verdeler dat de ontvanger €0 krijgt. Dan houdt u zelf €10. Vult u hieronder in welk deel van de €10 u aan de ontvanger wilt geven. Nogmaals, het resterende bedrag van de €10 is wat u zelf als ontvanger houdt.
Binnen 3 weken zal bekend worden gemaakt of u in uw rol als verdeler óf als ontvanger wordt uitbetaald op de manier waarop dit door de verdeler is ingevuld.
De ontvanger krijgt: € [open invoer]
7. U heeft zojuist een beslissing gemaakt over de verdeling van €10 tussen uzelf en een andere persoon. Geef hieronder aan hoe u zich daarover voelt.
Ik voel me nu…
Kolomkoppen (opties): veel minder … dan ik zou willen zijn (1) (2) (3) (4) precies zo …
als ik wil zijn (5) (6) (7) (8)
[Advertentie opnieuw laten zien]
8. Deze vraag gaat over de advertentie die u in het begin heeft gezien. Geef hieronder aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de stellingen.
Kolomkoppen (opties): Helemaal niet mee eens (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Helemaal mee eens (7) Weet niet/geen mening (998)
a) De advertentie van vanHaren laat hun maatschappelijke betrokkenheid zien b) Ik heb vertrouwen in de goede bedoelingen van vanHaren
c) De advertentie is een marketingtruc om meer schoenen te verkopen
9. U heeft een aantal uiteenlopende vragen beantwoord. Waar denkt u dat dit onderzoek over ging?
<open invoer>
