e, ‘93 . T" .-
53., 1

..

.‘...‘.A .'.
‘ «1.01”. ‘

M a.» ..

.nfz': g‘ M
; "é ’,.,.‘!
1,:-

> king};
"'34? IL?!”

33%;,5 ‘ ‘
lg - A
‘ ‘i’wﬁ,

- 33‘»,

 

 

200%

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

CONSUMER RESPONSE TO CAUSE-BRAND ALLIANCES:
HOW SITUATIONAL AND CONSUMER CHARACTERISTICS
INFLUENCE CONSUMER RESPONSE

presented by

Carrie Suzanne Trimble

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Mass Media

 

 

707/0. %

Majorﬁofessof’h Signature

4/37/ng 23 mg

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative ActiorVEquaI Opportunity Institution

o----n-.-------------—----»-v-»-- -

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:lCIRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

CONSUMER RESPONSE TO CAUSE-BRAND ALLIANCES:
HOW SITUATIONAL AND CONSUMER CHARACTERISTICS
INFLUENCE CONSUMER RESPONSE
By

Carrie Suzanne Trimble

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Mass Media

2007

ABSTRACT
CONSUMER RESPONSE TO CAUSE-BRAND ALLIANCES:
HOW SITUATIONAL AND CONSUMER CHARACTERISTICS
INFLUENCE CONSUMER RESPONSE
By

Can'ie Suzanne Trimble

The nature of a cause-brand alliance (CBA) makes it a unique marketing
promotion that creates an association or alliance between the corporation selling a
product and a social cause or issue. This study places causes-related marketing (CRM), a
speciﬁc type of CBA, in its appropriate contexts. By identifying the personal context of
the consumer based identiﬁcation with the cause, the study of CRM is closer to
understanding consumer response to this unique marketing practice. Further
understanding can be found by adding the situational context based on the congruence of
the cause-brand alliance. The study reported in this dissertation was developed to resolve
the equivocal ﬁndings of past research. Hierarchical regression and step-down analysis
suggest that the situational context of a CBA inﬂuences consumer attribution of corporate
motive while the personal context inﬂuences consumer perceptions of the situational
context. The ﬁndings suggest that consumer attribution of motive and consumer
acceptance of a CBA mediate the relationship between situational context and consumer
perceptions of corporate credibility and consumer attitude toward the corporate alliance

partner.

 

Copyright by
CARRIE SUZANNE TRIMBLE
2007

To Ann Trimble, who thought every girl should be a scholar, and to Joshua Trimble, who
ﬁghts every day for my right to disagree with him at every turn.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work would not be what it is today without the shared knowledge, guidance
and counsel of several people.

First, my eternal gratitude is due to Dr. Nora J. Rifon who patiently and
persistently pulled my ideas out of my head and insisted that theory and strategy shape
the contributions of this study.

I would also like to express my appreciation to Dr. Bonnie Reece, Dean Charles
Salmon and Dr. Kimmerly Piper-Aiken for their support. As a committee, their direction
and support was invaluable.

Many, many, many thanks are due to Chanin Peyton, my ﬁiend and favorite
editor.

Two other ﬁiends, my sisters, Sarah Gallagher and Tricia Bisby, provided great
emotional support while humoring the great graduate geek that I am.

Finally, I want to express my love and gratitude to my parents. Binnie and Dana
Trimble have been waiting since 1994 for me to end my professional student status.
Luckily for me, they understand that I will never stop learning, even if I no longer need to

pay tuition for the privilege.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. viii
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 7
Sponsorships ...................................................................................................... 8
Ambush Marketing .......................................................................................... 10
Afﬁnity Marketing ........................................................................................... 12
Cause-related Marketing .................................................................................. 13
Deﬁnition ....................................................................................... 15
Effectiveness .................................................................................. 17
Antecedents to Effective CRM ...................................................... 30
Public Perceptions .......................................................................... 38
Participant Perceptions ................................................................... 40
Final Thoughts ............................................................................... 45
CHAPTER 2
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .......................................................................... 46
Congruence Effects and Attribution of Corporate Motive .............................. 48
Consumer Attribution and Level of Acceptance of Cause-Brand Alliance ..... 51
Relationship with the Corporation ................................................................... 55
Characteristics of the Cause ............................................................................. 57
Characteristics of the Consumer ...................................................................... 62
CHAPTER 3
METHOD .............................................................................................................. 68
Design Overview ............................................................................................. 68
Cause Selection ................................................................................................ 69
Pretest 1 Participants ...................................................................... 69
Pretest 1 Procedure ........................................................................ 69
Pretest 2 Participants ...................................................................... 72
Pretest 2 Procedure ........................................................................ 73
Pretest 3 Participants ...................................................................... 77
Pretest 3 Procedure ........................................................................ 77
Experimental Design and Data Collection Procedure ..................................... 83
Main Study Participants ................................................................. 83
Main Study Procedure .................................................................... 84

vi

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 92
Statistical Analysis ........................................................................................... 92
Manipulation Check ......................................................................................... 92
Attribution of Motive ....................................................................................... 93
Effects of Congruence and Prevalence ............................................................ 95
Attitude and Perceptions of Corporate Credibility .......................................... 99
Characteristics of the Cause ............................................................................. 99
Perceptions of Social Signiﬁcance ................................................................. 102
Relationship with the Corporation ................................................................. 102
Gender ............................................................................................................ 103
Hierarchical Multiple Regression .................................................................. 104
Step-down Analysis ....................................................................................... 105

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... l 10
Discussion ...................................................................................................... 1 10
Limitations ..................................................................................................... 1 16
Future Research ............................................................................................. l 18

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 122
Appendix A .................................................................................................... 122
Appendix B .................................................................................................... 125
Appendix C .................................................................................................... 129
Appendix D .................................................................................................... 133
Appendix E .................................................................................................... 152
Appendix F ..................................................................................................... 171
Appendix G .................................................................................................... 190

REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 209

viI

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Characteristics of Interest ........................................................................... 3
Table 3.1 Sample Sizes .......................................................................................... 68
Table 3.2 Social causes tested in Pretests 1 and Pretest 2 ..................................... 71
Table 3.3 Pretest 1 selection of prevalence scale means and reliability alphas ..... 72

Table 3.4 Pretest 1 selection of congruence scale means and reliability alphas....72

Table 3.5 Pretest 2 t-values and p-values for prevalence ....................................... 75
Table 3.6 Pretest 2 selection of prevalence scale means and reliability alphas ..... 76
Table 3.7Pretest 2 selection of congruence scale means and reliability alphas ..... 77
Table 3.8 Social causes tested in Pretest 3 ............................................................. 79
Table 3.9 Pretest 3 selection of prevalence scale means and reliability alphas ..... 81
Table 3.10 Pretest 3 selection of congruence means and reliability alphas ........... 82
Table 3.11 Assigned conditions ............................................................................. 83
Table 3.12 Variable means for chosen conditions ................................................. 83
Table 3.13 Items for attributions of corporate motive ........................................... 89
Table 3.14 Listing of measures and Cronbach’s alpha .......................................... 91
Table 4.1 Attribution factor analysis results .......................................................... 94
Table 4.2 ANOVA and AN COVA results by condition ........................................ 98
Table 4.3 Scale means for acceptance of alliance by condition ............................ 99
Table 4.4 Correlation of two identiﬁcation variables .......................................... 101
Table 4.5 t-tests by gender ................................................................................... 102
Table 4.6 Models of hierarchical regression ........................................................ 105
Table 4.7a Step—down analysis ............................................................................ 109

viil

Table 4.7b Step-down analysis continued ........................................................... 110

Table 4.8 List of hypotheses and ﬁndings ........................................................... 111

‘ix

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Polonsky and Speed comparison ............................................................ 9
Figure 1.2 Barnes and F itzgibbons typology ......................................................... 17
Figure 1.3 Inﬂuence of corporate associations: study one ..................................... 27
Figure 1.4 Inﬂuence of corporate associations: study two .................................... 27
Figure 1.5 Types of ﬁt ........................................................................................... 35
Figure 1.6 Continuum of objectives ....................................................................... 43
Figure 1.7 Gourville and Rangan model ................................................................ 44
Figure 2.1 Three-way ﬁt of CRM Relationships ................................................... 55
Figure 2.2 Model of consumer response as examine ............................................. 66
Figure 2.3 Cobb and Elder issue publics ............................................................... 67
Figure 4.1 Model of consumer response as found ............................................... 112

INTRODUCTION

The nature of a cause-brand alliance makes it a unique marketing promotion. A
cause-brand alliance (CBA) creates an association or alliance between the corporation
selling a product and a social cause or issue. Cause-related marketing (CRM), one type of
CBA, is distinct because of “the ﬁrm’s contribution to a designated cause being linked to
customers’ engaging in revenue-producing transactions with the ﬁrm” (V aradarajan and
Menon 1988, p. 60). The tactic inﬂuences the tenor of marketing communications by
focusing on the beneﬁts to society jointly created by the alliance and the consumer
purchase, as opposed to product attributes or usage beneﬁts. It also provides consumer
beneﬁts through a purchase process that provides support for a social cause; that is,
consumers can support social causes with minimal effort through the purchase of
products. Consumers use this socially responsible support for an issue or cause as a
deciding factor in purchase decisions under conditions of product parity, that is, when
competing brands are considered equal or comparable (Holmes and Kilbane 1993).

Beyond CRM, corporations have a multitude of opportunities to create socially
responsible CBAs without tying their behavior or support to a “revenue producing
transaction.” These other options do not stress product sales or corporate proﬁt and
conceivably carry less risk of consumer perception of mercenary motivation for the
behavior (Webb and Mohr 1999). Questions have been raised as to whether the activity
of generating donations through product purchase is worthwhile when other options are
available. Most research suggests that CRM campaigns can make a positive impression

on consumers’ perceptions. CRM campaigns have been found to inﬂuence consumer

purchase intentions, attitudes, and corporate credibility perceptions (Berger, Cunningham
and Kozinets 1999; Chaney and Dolli 2001; Hajjat 2003; Lafferty, Goldsmith and Hult
2004; Trimble and Rifon 2006; Yechiam et al. 2003). Consumers report being less
sensitive to price and product attribute differences after exposure to a CRM campaign
(Pracejus and Olsen 2004). However, CRM campaigns are not always successful (Garcia,
Gibaja and Mujika 2003), and they carry a potential for backlash (Barone, Miyazaki and
Taylor 2000; Dahl and Lavack 1995). Yet, the popularity of CRM as a marketing tool
continues to increase as spending estimates for CRM exceeded $1 billion for 2004 in the
United States alone (2004 Manufacturer and Retailer Cause Marketing Attitudes and
Practices Study).

Perhaps due to the relative infancy of the practice (it has been cited as having its
origins in an American Express campaign to support the local arts scene in San Francisco
in 1982), there has been little theoretically driven empirical study of the effectiveness of
the tactic and the inﬂuence of its conﬁgurations. Evidence does suggest that CRM can
positively inﬂuence consumer response. However, the cognitive mechanisms associated
with consumer response and the tactical conditions that generate positive response are
still arguable. The empirical ﬁndings on the process of consumer inﬂuence and the
identiﬁcation of consumer characteristics associated with the process are inconclusive,
perhaps in part due to a still nascent theoretical approach used in the area.

There is little doubt that the characteristics of the campaign’s target market, as
well as the characteristics of the cause-brand alliance, are essential to a model of effects.
This study has been designed to ﬂesh out those variables and analyze speciﬁc

characteristics, both of consumers and cause-brand alliances, for evidence that they

inﬂuence consumer response to cause-related marketing. F urtherrnore, the study will
expand present models of consumer response to CRM and other alliance strategies (such
as sponsorships) through the development of a more comprehensive explanation of
consumer cognitive response within the context of CRM.

Several different characteristics of cause-brand alliances and their target
audiences have been studied in an attempt to explain the effectiveness of CRM. The
concepts studied in this dissertation appear in Table 1. The following is an introduction to

their importance and relevance to understanding consumer response to CRM tactics.

 

 

 

Table 1.

Characteristics of Interest: The Cause-Brand Alliance and Its Target Audience
Characteristics of the Cause-Brand Characteristics of the Target Audience
Alliance
Congruence between cause and brand Relationship with the cause including:

Identiﬁcation with the people affected
Prevalence of the cause in CBAs by the cause

Identiﬁcation with the cause
Expectations of corporate support Perceptions of social signiﬁcance

Of the cause

Relationship with the company including:
Attitude toward the corporation
Perceptions of corporate credibility

Attributions of corporate motive

Acceptance of the cause-brand alliance

 

Additional demographics

 

 

The choice of the social cause highlighted in the cause-brand alliance perhaps has
received the most attention (Brown and Dacin 1997; Ellen, Mohr and Webb 2000; Hajjat
2003; Mizerski, Mizerski and Sandler 2001; Porter and Kramer 2002; Pracejus and Olsen
2004; Trimble and Rifon 2006). In CRM research, as in sponsorship research (another
type of cause-brand alliance), the study of choosing a social cause typically revolves
around ﬁnding the correct cause or the cause that offers the best ﬁt. Other areas of
consumer behavior (brand extensions and celebrity endorsers, as two examples) also offer
support for the importance of ﬁt or match for the creation of positive outcomes (Aaker
and Keller 1990; Kamins and Gupta 1994). The sponsorship literature carries the concept
of ﬁt or match a bit further and deﬁnes two different types of ﬁt—image ﬁt and
functional ﬁt (Gwinner 1997). This explication of match suggests that a Sponsorship will
be successful if consumers believe the sponsoring company and the recipient of the
sponsorship to be closely related. This close match can either be a match of the image-
based perceptions of the consumer or a match of a functional, pragmatic nature.

For cause-related marketing, some researchers believe that the most effective
alliances are those that offer a functional ﬁt or focus on the core competencies of the
company making a donation (Brown and Dacin 1997; Porter and Kramer 2002). An
example of a cause-brand alliance with a functional ﬁt would be a power tool company
that donated money or tools to Habitat for Humanity as consumers purchased the
products of the power tool company. There is a logical appeal to this type of cause-brand
alliance and an expectation that consumers would perceive the involvement of the power
tool company to be credible as the company’s expertise with tools (and, presumably,

building projects) would be obvious to most consumers.

 

While not denying the logical appeal of cause-brand alliances that concentrate on
a social issue relating to the business of the donating corporation, others have found that a
cause-brand alliance with a functional ﬁt brings about varying consumer responses
(Ellen, Mohr and Webb 2000; Mizerski, Mizerski and Sandler 2001; Pracejus and Olsen
2004; Trimble and Rifon 2006). Not all cause-brand alliances with a ﬁinctional ﬁt are a
success (Mizerski, Mizerski and Sandler 2001), and many executives have reported
concerns about consumer perceptions of corporate greed if the connection between the
corporation and the cause are too obvious or too close (Webb and Mohr 1999). One
possible weakness of the assumption that consumers prefer all cause-brand alliances with
functional ﬁts is that some functional ﬁts would place corporations in alliances with
causes that work against the interests of the corporations. For example, there is a
functional ﬁt between a casino and the not-for-proﬁt Gamblers Anonymous. However,
supporting a not-for-proﬁt organization (NPO) that discourages gambling and the
consequent proﬁts that gambling brings to casinos is against the self-interest of the casino
corporation. New research in CRM suggests that the underlying question is not whether
consumers perceive an alliance to be a functional ﬁt or an image ﬁt, but rather whether
consumers accept the alliance as a good ﬁt by rating the alliance partners as compatible
(T rimble and Rifon 2006). This suggests that to understand consumer response to CRM,
the concept of ﬁt or congruence may be multidimensional and needs further explication.

Additionally, the nature of the consumer offers a logical explanation for the
variety of response to different CRM tactics. For example, researchers have found that
gender can be a good predictor of acceptance of a CRM campaign as women have

reported more positive responses to CRM campaigns than men (Berger, Cunningham and

Kozinets 1999; Ross, Patterson and Stutts 1992; Ross, Stutts and Patterson 1990; Trimble
and Rifon 2006). The nurturing nature of women has been offered as an explanation for
the difference in some studies (Berger, Cunningham and Kozinets 1999; Ross, Patterson
and Stutts 1992), but any relationship between consumers and the partners in an alliance
should be examined before the difference found in these studies is marked up to gender
socialization. Individual relationship with speciﬁc causes or corporations, rather than
gender, may provide a clearer understanding of consumer response to a cause-brand
alliance than gender.

It is important to place CRM in its appropriate contexts. Consumer responses to
marketing tactics are individualistic and varied. By identifying the personal context of the
consumer based on the relationship with the cause and the relationship with the
corporation, the study of CRM is closer to understanding consumer response to this
unique marketing practice. Further understanding can be found by adding the situational
context based on the ﬁt of the cause-brand alliance. The studies reported in this
dissertation were developed to resolve the equivocal ﬁndings of past research. A
theoretical model of consumer response to CRM is expanded through the addition of
individual and CRM tactical variables, and is tested with an experiment. The results offer
some resolution for managerial questions about CRM best practices, and insight into

modeling consumer cognitive response to CRM tactics.

CHAPTER ONE

LITERATURE REVIEW

The recently coined term, cause-brand alliances, describes several different types
of alliances between a for-proﬁt corporation or the products of a for-proﬁt corporation
and a social cause or movement. A cause-brand alliance (CBA) could be a cause-related
marketing campaign, sponsorship activity, an afﬁnity marketing campaign or an ambush
marketing attempt. Cause-brand alliance should not be conﬁtsed with social marketing.
Social marketing results from a use of commercial marketing techniques, by charities and
not-for-proﬁt organizations, in attempt to solve a social problem. For over thirty years,
not-for-proﬁt organizations have used commercial marketing means to address social
problems (Andreasen 1996; Fox and Kotler 1980; Rothschild 1999). However, these
commercial marketing efforts are always on behalf of the charity or NPO that is trying to
ease the social problem—there is no association with a corporation or brand. When a
corporation or brand becomes involved with the NPO, then efforts become cause-brand
alliances. The differences between the types of CBAS rest in how the association between
the social and the for-proﬁt organization are created. However, it is the similarities
between types that make a discussion of all types prudent. That discussion necessarily
includes the similar characteristics across types of CBAS and the overlap in research

ﬁndings across the types.

Sponsorship

Of these different types of alliances, sponsorship activities present an indirect
route for consumer feedback or response to an alliance. For example, when US. Cellular
began its sponsorship of the baseball stadium of the Chicago White Sox in 2003 the
ﬁnancial obligations of the sponsorship were not dependent on White Sox fans signing up
for US. Cellular service. No purchase was required to trigger payments from US.
Cellular to the White Sox, and any beneﬁts earned by US. Cellular for the sponsorship
would be, by necessity, indirect and organic. In contrast, two of the other types of
alliances, cause-related marketing and afﬁnity marketing, require action on the part of the
consumer to trigger monetary support of the NPO by the for-proﬁt organization. (The
fourth type, ambush marketing, provides no ﬁnancial support at all.)

The link between sponsorship as a cause-brand alliance and cause-related
marketing has been explored by Polonsky and Speed (2001). The authors refer to both
sponsorship and cause-related marketing as “reﬁnements of philanthropy-type giving” (p.
1363). The links between the two are explored (as well as the links with corporate
philanthropy) through funding, resources, use of resources, key market outcomes, sales
impact and revenue ﬂows. (See Figure 1.1 for detail.) Additionally, the authors discuss
the possibilities of integrating CRM and sponsorship campaigns. One obstacle to fully
leveraging the integration of sponsorships and cause-related marketing is that
sponsorships are not expected to directly impact sales. The lack of expectation for direct
impact means that little data is available about the return on investment for sponsorships.
Without this data, it would be difficult to measure additive effects of integrating

sponsorships and cause-related marketing.

Figure 1.1

Polonsky and Speed Comparison

 

 

Corporate
Activity philanthropy Sponsorship CRM program
Funding Fixed Fixed Variable possible
capped
Resources None Association Association
Use of resources No commercial use Association is used to Association is used to
made of association attempt to change create a customer
customer attitudes, offer, linked to a
behavioral intentions speciﬁc contribution
and behaviors to the cause
Key market None Attitudes Behaviors (sales),
outcomes - (positioning), behavioral intentions
behavioral intentions (loyalty and
(loyalty and preference) and
preference) and attitudes (positioning)
behaviors (sales)
Sales impact None Indirect sales impact Direct sales impact
Revenue ﬂows None Exclusively to Split between the

sponsor

cause and the sponsor

The seminal article on sponsorship deﬁnes sponsorship through an exchange and
the public promotion of the exchange (Comwell and Maignan 1998). First, a corporate
sponsor and a sponsee participate in an exchange where the sponsor pays a fee to receive
the right of association with sponsee. Next, the sponsor publicly promotes the
association. In an international review of the contemporary sponsorship literature, the
authors identify ﬁve sponsorship research streams. Those include the nature of
Sponsorship, managerial aspects of sponsorship, measurement of sponsorship effects, the
strategic use of sponsorship and legal and ethical considerations in sponsorship. In
addition to the review of the current research, the authors provide suggestions for
direction within the sponsorship effects research stream. Stating that few researchers have
tried to explain how sponsorship inﬂuences consumers’ perceptions of corporate
sponsors, the authors suggest using congruence theory as a conceptual framework for
explaining sponsorship effects. Speciﬁcally, the authors suggest that corporate

sponsorship activity that is consistent with consmner expectations should be the most

inﬂuential sponsorship activity. Congruence effects were predicted to positively affect
attitude toward the promotions of sponsorships and attitudes toward sponsors.

Later meta-analysis of sponsorship research (Comwell, Weeks and Roy 2005)
ﬁnds that congruence effects have become the most studied process for explanation of
sponsorship effects. The meta-analysis showed that researchers have found that
congruence can inﬂuence consumer cognition, affect and behavior. Congruent
partnerships between sponsors and sponsees were found to produce more favorable
thoughts (Becker-Olsen and Simmons 2002), more favorable attitudes (Becker-Olsen and
Simmons 2002; McDaniel 1999; Rifon et al. 2004), stronger perceptions of corporate
credibility (Rifon et al. 2004), improved recall (Comwell et al 2003), raise share prices
(Comwell, Pruitt and Van Ness 2001), and purchase behavior (Pracejus and Olsen 2004).

The similarities between sponsorship and cause-related marketing provide a
strong motivation for researchers to investigate congruence effects in cause-related
marketing. Additionally, those same similarities in characteristics of the types of cause-
brand alliances suggest that similar outcomes (cognitive, affective and behavioral) can be

expected.

Ambush Marketing

Ambush marketing, like cause-related marketing, is a mass marketing approach
that relies on the use of generally accepted, widely popular social causes. However,
ambush marketing is distinct ﬁ'om the technique used in cause-related marketing because
the ambush approach provides only verbal support of a social cause or NPO without any

ﬁnancial support (Mizerski, Mizerski and Sandler 2003). In ambush marketing, for-proﬁt

10

 

corporations use an event or social cause as the justiﬁcation for promotional activities but
those promotions never lead to sponsorship of the event or charitable donations to the
social cause. For example, a corporation could buy advertising time during the broadcast
of the Olympic Games without being an ofﬁcial sponsor of the national Olympic team.
Likewise, a retailer could schedule a breast cancer awareness sale in October, national
breast cancer awareness month, without ever donating any money to breast cancer-related
organizations. This type of cause-brand alliance can be problematic as it raises questions
of ethics (Meenaghan 1994) and the possibility of consumer backlash (Shoebridge 1997).

Initial research on ambush marketing tactics found that this type of CBA did not
produce the same positive results as sponsorships (Sandler and Shani 1989). Following
the 1988 Winter Olympics, consumers reported higher recall of ofﬁcial Olympic sponsors
than of companies that advertised during Olympic broadcasts without sponsorship ties.
Similar research following the 1992 Summer Olympic Games found even stronger
support for sponsorship over ambush marketing. Consumer responses followed the same
pattern in 1992 as in 1988, but with improved recall and awareness ratings. However, not
all research ﬁndings support the assertion that sponsorship is more effective than ambush
marketing (McDaniel and Kinney 1998).

McDaniel and Kinney (1998) found that women report more positive brand
attitudes and stronger purchase intentions than men, regardless of CBA type. In an
experiment designed around the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, no gender differences
were found in recall or awareness measures, but women, in general, reported more

positive responses to corporate sponsors and ambush marketers than men did. These

11

ﬁndings parallel those found in previous CRM research (Ross, Patterson and Stutts

1992).

Afﬁnity Marketing

Afﬁnity marketing makes the most of group membership (school alumni, sports
fans) to deﬁne a direct connection between the targeted consumers and the NPO that
receives a donation as a result of the targeted consumer’s purchase activities. Maryland
Bank of North America, acquired by Bank of America in 2005, was well known for its
afﬁnity credit cards that allowed consumers to show their support of professional
organizations, sports leagues and alumni associations visually, through the trademarks
and logos printed on the credit cards, and ﬁnancially, through donations made as a result
of consumer use of the credit card. Utilizing the direct connections between alumni and
their universities or professionals and their professional organizations (like that between
attorneys and the American Bar Association) gave MBNA a customer base that was
loyal, willing to support a speciﬁc organization, made frequent use its cards and carried
higher balances than other credit card users (Talcott 2005). Strategically, afﬁnity
marketing requires different products for different target markets (the same credit card
that appeals to University of Michigan alumni can not be used to reach the 50,000
members of the Michigan State University alumni association).

The increased loyalty of MBNA customers can be explained by the endowment-
institutional afﬁnity effect. First, consumers attribute more value to an owned item, over
time, than the item’s market value (Tom 2004). This endowment effect is stronger when

the owned item identiﬁes a consumer’s group membership or institutional afﬁnity. For

12

 

example, coﬂ‘ee mugs that bear a university insignia are considered more valuable to
people who own the mugs and are considered most valuable by people who own the
mugs and identify with the university represented by the insignia. Therefore, consumers
who identify themselves as students, alumni or supporters of a university consider a
coffee mug bearing that university’s insignia more valuable than its actual market value,
and those same people consider the mug to be more valuable than other people who own
the same mug but do not identify with the university.

These ﬁndings are applicable to cause-related marketing in the instances when a
consumer identiﬁes with or has an affinity for the social cause in a cause-brand alliance.
Because cause-related marketing CBAS are created to appeal to a general audience, the
direct connections and consequent loyalty that comes from group membership are
frequently missing from cause-related marketing CBAS. While it is possible that a CRM
campaign could include a social cause that motivates strong support from consumers,
individual campaigns are not created to reach speciﬁc target markets that in turn support
speciﬁc social causes. Instead, cause-related marketing relies heavily on widely popular
and widely used social causes in an attempt to reach the general public. However, in the
case where consumers do identify with or have an afﬁnity for a certain social cause, the
research ﬁndings from afﬁnity marketing suggest that a stronger, more positive consumer

response could be expected in those instances of cause-related marketing.

13

Cause-Related Marketing

In the early 1980s, American Express Co. tried out a new marketing concept to
increase use of their card and the cards’ acceptance at retail outlets (Andreason 1996).
For every purchase a consumer made using an American Express card, American Express
Co. would make a donation to charity. First, American Express Co. used this marketing
practice in San Francisco, and following on the success of that campaign, the company
later developed a national campaign that beneﬁted the renovation of Ellis Island and the
Statue of Liberty. American Express Co. had hit upon a marketing concept so innovative
they were able to copyright the term they developed to describe it: cause-related
marketing.

The innovation of cause-related marketing lies in the links that are created
between a business and social issues or causes. Different from straight philanthropy,
cause-related marketing joins a corporation together with a speciﬁc cause or a not-for-
proﬁt organization (NPO) that supports that cause in creating a marketing campaign that
helps raise awareness of and funds for the cause or NPO while simultaneously beneﬁting
the corporation. Cause-related marketing is not meant as charity. Indeed, the money for
cause-related marketing campaigns does not come from the portion of the budget ear-
marked for philanthropy (V aradarajan and Menon 1988). Instead, these campaigns are
usually supported from marketing budgets just as any other marketing campaign would
be. The campaigns are developed as an investment meant to improve the corporation’s
bottom line in the long-run. Cause-related marketing is meant to be a symbiotic

relationship that aids the for-proﬁt participants as much as the not-for-proﬁt participants.

14

 

The relationship should improve the corporation’s performance as it aids a social cause or
issue.

The new prominence of cause-related marketing as a marketing strategy is a
compelling reason for a closer look at this phenomenon and the research that surrounds it.
Because of the recency of the development of cause-related marketing as a marketing
concept, published research is limited. With that in mind, this paper provides a better
understanding of how cause-related marketing works and how it is perceived through a

synthesis of the literature that is available.

Deﬁnition.

The research on cause-related marketing is limited in depth but extensive in its
breadth. The seminal article on cause-related marketing was written in 1988 and features
a deﬁnition of cause-related marketing that researchers rely on today.

Cause related marketing is the process of formulating and

implementing marketing activities that are characterized by an offer from

the ﬁrm to contribute a speciﬁed amount to a designated cause when

consumers engage in revenue-providing exchanges that satisfy

organizational and individual objectives(Varadarajan and Menon, p. 60).
Cause-related marketing is also seen as an exchange between a ﬁrm, consumer and a
cause (Dahl and Lavack 1995; Ross, Patterson and Stutts 1992). Because of the three-
way interaction, the exchange is complex, and despite the beneﬁt to a social cause the
exchange remains utilitarian. Consumers purchase the goods they need while ﬁrms make
the proﬁts they desire. While supporting issues with which consumers are concerned,
corporations can meet their traditional marketing goals (Smith and Stodghill 1994).
Similarly, cause-related marketing has been described as a “viable marketing tool for

improving corporate performance while helping worthy causes” (Webb and Mohr 1998,

15

p. 226). Practically speaking, cause-related marketing can be described as a link between
a corporation’s identity and social issues and causes (File and Prince 1998).

Cause-related marketing has also been deﬁned as “corporate philanthropy
organized to increase the bottom line” (Barnes and Fitzgibbons 1991, p. 20). In a
conceptual piece that describes the existing state of the tactic, Barnes and Fitzgibbons
provide a typology for cause-related marketing campaigns based on the length of the
campaign and the recipient of the donation. (See Figure 1.2 for full description of
typologies.) Campaigns are designated as either one-shot or ongoing while the recipients
are classiﬁed as either charities or causes. The authors suggest that a one-shot campaign
with a charity is a low-risk way for a for-proﬁt corporation to test cause-related
marketing as a corporate strategy. The authors also point out that the difference in
organizational structures of charities and causes should be considered by corporations
considering a new campaign. The established and easily identiﬁable administrative
structures of charities alleviate risk for their corporate partners and help the partners
avoid potential conﬂict and subsequent negative publicity.

Cause-related marketing has also been called a situation where “everyone comes
out a winner” (Ceasar 2001 , p. 16). In an article that discusses the concept of cause-
related marketing, Ceasar describes a tactic that directly links a business’s goods or
services to a charity. Similarly to Barnes and Fitzgibbons, Ceasar describes the existing
state of the tactic while also addressing the ethical considerations and the possible impact
on not-for-proﬁt organizations. Opinions on the tactic were divided and extreme. CRM is
classiﬁed as either typically American, balancing commerce with the good of society, or

as commercial taint on the non-proﬁt sector.

16

 

Figure 1.2

 

Barnes and Fitzg'Lbbons Typology

 

 

 

 

 

 

One Shot Ongoing
Charity Statue of Liberty—Ellis Special Olympics
Island Foundation
Easter Seal Society
Halloween Coupons
(Burger King and March of Helping Hands
Dimes)
Ronald McDonald House
March of Dimes
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
Cause Earth Day 1990 Comic Relief (Help the
Homeless) with HBO
Live Aid
Annual walkathons
Farm Aid supporting AIDS, the
homeless, etc.
Hands Across America
National Parks Preservation
Fund (National Parks
Foundation)
Eﬁkctiveness.

By the end of the 19908, corporations spent $630 million annually on cause-
related marketing campaigns--an increase of 504% from the beginning of the decade
(Cone 1999). With this monetary vote of conﬁdence, academics began to study the
effectiveness of cause-related marketing in earnest. Early research looked at consumer
response by simply asking if cause-related marketing works as a means to promote a
corporation’s products and brands. The following section examines the effectiveness of

CRM studies through measures of attitude, corporate credibility perceptions, consumer

acceptance of CRM, and consumer beliefs of exploitation.

17

 

 

As any marketing practitioner knows, a marketing campaign that looks good on
paper is not guaranteed to succeed. One of the main concerns of cause-related marketing
campaigns is public perception and acceptance of the campaigns (V aradarajan and
Menon 1988). Corporations that use cause-related marketing campaigns must walk a
straight and narrow line to assure themselves that the campaigns generate positive
publicity, goodwill and increased sales instead of negative publicity and charges of
exploitation.

The preliminary academic research as well as one longitudinal practical study
shows that consumers are receptive to cause-related marketing (Ross, Patterson and Stutts
1992, Dahl and Lavack 1995, Brown and Dacin 1997, Strahilevitz and Myers 1998, Cone
1999). One early study found that consumers thought ﬁrms who participated in cause-
related marketing campaigns were socially responsible (Ross, Patterson and Stutts 1992).
Using an experimental design and personal interviews to test whether consumers were
more supportive of local causes than national causes, the researchers found that
consumers’ willingness and intentions to purchase products linked to cause-related
marketing campaigns were positive. Cause-related marketing campaigns also reﬂected
positively on the NPOs that participate. The campaigns were considered a good way to
raise money for a social cause, and choosing to use a cause-related marketing campaign
to raise funds was seen as a responsible decision for a board of directors to make. No
support was found for the hypothesis that consumers would be more inﬂuenced by local
causes than national ones, but the researchers did ﬁnd a difference in attitude toward

ﬁrms and causes according to gender. In general, cause-related marketing campaigns

18

 

elicited a more positive response from women than men. The authors attributed this
difference to the nurturing nature of women, but that attribution was not directly tested.

Other researchers have looked at cause-related marketing to determine what
makes some campaigns appear exploitative while others are readily accepted (Dahl and
Lavack 1995). Experimentally manipulating the size of donation and the size of the
campaign, researchers looked at which factors reﬂected favorably or unfavorably on the
ﬁrms and NPOs that participate in these campaigns. Study participants reported that a
larger donation made the campaign appear less exploitative and provided more product
appeal. Also, consumers felt a larger donation was of more beneﬁt for the NPO. No
differences in attitudes were found based on the size of the campaign.

Attitude change in consumers can be expected as a result of cause-related
marketing campaigns, but campaigns are more effective when alliances are maintained
over time (Till and Nowak 2000). Cause-related marketing campaigns can also be
expected to affect consumers’ cognitive knowledge. Conceptually, associative learning
theory suggests that the ﬁt between the brand and the cause is important to the success of
CRM campaigns and that any results will be more pronounced for brands that are less
familiar to consumers. Because consumers have established associations with a familiar
brand, the link with a cause may become a secondary association. Less familiar brands
are then more likely to be known by the social cause association than any other product-
or brand-related feature. Finally, for the full effect of associative learning, using the entire
marketing mix as part of the alliance should provide maximum leverage.

A more recent look at cause-related marketing used correspondent attribution

theory to test the effect of cause-brand alliances on consumers’ attitudes and perceptions

19

of corporate credibility (Trimble and Rifon 2006). Comparing three types of cause-
related marketing campaigns (a functionally congruent campaign, an image congruent
campaign and an incongruent campaign), the researchers found that consumer perception
of congruence was more important to consumer response than the actual, functional
correspondence between the cause and the donor. Consumers who rated a CRM
campaign as congruent had stronger perceptions of credibility of the CRM campaign and
of corporate credibility. Stronger perceptions of credibility subsequently led to more
positive attitudes toward the corporate donor.

The effect of cause-related marketing campaigns has been found to be stable over
time (Yechiam et al. 2003). In an empirical experiment, the research tested the stability
of consumer perceptions that involvement with a CRM campaign is an indicator of a
high-quality product. Evidence was reported that the effect of a CRM campaign did not
diminish over time and might actually increase (supporting the assertions that CRM is
most effective when alliances are maintained over time). Cause-related marketing was
also found to change the equilibrium of product choices. CRM could make products with
fewer features more attractive while lessening the appeal of an alternative with superior
features.

Cone, Inc., a communication and public relations firm in the “foreﬁont” of cause-
related marketing campaign creation (http:l/www.conecommunctions.com/website/cause-
related marketing/main.htm), has found evidence of public acceptance of cause-related
marketing (Cone 1999). The I 999 Cone/Roper Cause Related Trends Report is the third
of a ﬁve-year longitudinal study focusing on consumer attitudes toward cause-related

marketing, consumer recognition of cause-related marketing campaigns and effect of

20

cause-related marketing on employees of corporations that participate in cause-related
marketing campaigns. The 1999 report found that 74% of consumers accept cause-related
marketing. This percentage is up from the 66% acceptability rate of 1993. Acceptance of
cause-related marketing cuts across race, age and gender (Cone data from “If You’re Not
Committed, Don’t Bother” 1994). However, level of education does have an impact on
acceptance as college-educated consumers respond best. Companies who support causes
consumers care about have a more positive image than companies who do not (according
to 83% of those surveyed) (Cone 1999). Perhaps more convincing than expressions of
general attitudes are the 61% of participants who reported they would likely switch
brands or retailers to ﬁnd one in support of a good cause
(http://www.conecommunications.com/website/cause-related marketing/report.htm).

Cause-related marketing can help companies break through the clutter of
advertising. Consumers were asked to list, unaided, companies they considered socially
responsible. McDonald’s, long known for its community-minded activities, and Wal-
Mart, a more recent convert to the support of local communities, top the list. The 1999
Cone/Roper Report also found that cause-related marketing inﬂuences the morale of
employees who work for corporations that use cause-related marketing. Eighty-seven
percent of people who work for companies involved in cause-related marketing have a
stronger sense of loyalty than those interviewed who do not work for corporations with
cause-related marketing ties (Cone 1999).

Cause-related marketing ties can also inﬂuence consumer product choice (Barone,
Miyazaki and Taylor 2000; Van den Brink, Odekerken-Schroder and Pauwels 2006).

Through experimental design, researchers found that the support for social causes could

21

 

sway consumer brand loyalty and product choice. Early research measured consumer
responses to CBAS tied to the purchase of televisions and personal computers (Barone,
Miyazaki and Taylor 2000). The strongest support for this assertion came from situations
where consumers were not required to pay more or receive less in product performance
when they chose the product that was part of a cause-related marketing campaign.
However, the inﬂuence of support of social causes was weaker when large trade-offs
were evident. Later research suggests that consumers make different product choices,
through their reported brand loyalty, when they are purchasing low-involvement products
(like stapICS) (Brink, Odekerken-Schroder and Pauwels 2006). The increased brand
loyalty is strongest when consumers perceive a long-term commitment to the social cause
by the corporation.

Consumers have reported a willingness to accept slightly higher prices or slightly
lower quality products in order to support a social cause (Barone, Miyazaki and Taylor
2000). Consumer willingness to accept price and performance trade-offs can be
inﬂuenced by the ﬁt between a cause and brand in a cause-related marketing campaign
(Pracejus and Olsen 2004). In an empirical experiment, Pracejus and Olsen found that
consumers would accept a price trade-off regardless of the relationship between the brand
and the charity. However, when the ﬁt between a brand and a charity was high,
consumers were willing to pay more than $3.00 above what they were willing to pay
when the ﬁt was low. Additionally, support of a high-ﬁt charity led to consumer
acceptance of performance trade-offs. Speciﬁcally, when a portion of the purchase price

of amusement park tickets supported a high-ﬁt charity (Children’s Miracle Network),

22

consumers were less sensitive to driving distances, less sensitive to the number of rides at
the park and less sensitive to the hours of operation of the park.

The ﬁt between cause and brand has also been found to affect consumer purchase
intentions (Gupta and Pirsch 2006). In two experimental studies, the authors measured
participants’ perception of the ﬁt between a company and a cause in a cause-brand
alliance. When consumers reported a strong ﬁt between a company and a cause, the
consumer also reported stronger intentions to purchase the product associated with the
CBA. Also, consumers reporting a strong ﬁt indicated more positive attitudes toward the
corporation. These results were stronger when consumers initially reported a positive
attitude toward the company.

In addition to inﬂuencing purchase intentions, cause-related marketing has been

found to improve a corporation’s reputation (Dean 2003). In a 3 x 2 (corporate reputation
by type of donation) experiment, the researcher found that consumer-made attributions of
corporate motive did not affect consumer perceptions of corporate reputation equally.
Making corporate donations, even if they are conditional on consumer purchase, can
improve the reputation of corporations with poor or average reputations. Only ﬁrms with
scrupulous reputations did not reap equal beneﬁts from unconditional donations and
conditional donations.

Porter and Kramer (2002) also report that corporate philanthropy through cause-
related marketing can improve a corporate donor’s reputation. When used appropriately,
cause-related marketing can provide positive publicity for the corporate donor as well as
an association with the admirable qualities of the donation recipient. However, the

authors claim that even sophisticated use of cause-related marketing can not truly be

23

described as strategic philanthropy. Without the strategy, cause-related marketing does
not provide all the beneﬁts to its partners that it could. Positive publicity can generate
goodwill, but the authors argue that the publicity alone can not make companies better
competitors. “True strategic giving, by contrast, addresses important social and economic
goals simultaneously, targeting areas of competitive context where the company and
society both beneﬁt because the ﬁrm brings unique assets and expertise” (p. 58).

However, other research suggests that cause-related marketing alone can not
overcome negative publicity (Deshpande and Hitchon 2002). In the absence of negative
publicity, cause-related marketing campaigns for a ﬁctitious coffee manufacturer were
found to be more credible than brand advertising. (Only public-service announcements
were more credible than CRM ads in the absence of negative publicity). However,
immediately following news that the ﬁctitious company was the state’s leader in
Styrofoam cup waste, brand advertising was viewed as more credible than CRM ads.

Strahilevitz found similar support for the assertion that cause-related marketing
can not overcome negative publicity (2003). In an empirical experiment, the researcher
found that in situations where consumers have neutral impressions of a ﬁrm’s ethics
cause-related marketing can have the greatest impact. Firms that were seen as unethical
received the least amount of beneﬁt. These ﬁndings were strongest when the ethical
reputation was experimentally manipulated. When real company names were used (Philip
Morris as the unethical, Timex as the neutral and Ben and Jerry’s as the ethical), the
ﬁndings were not as strong.

Research like that of Deshpande and Hitchon (2003) that compares cause-related

marketing to other types of promotion allows marketers to discover if cause-related

24

 

marketing works as well or better than traditional marketing strategies. If corporations
only hold econorrric objectives for their cause-related marketing campaigns, evidence
suggests that cause-related marketing may not be the most effective strategy (Smith and
Stodghill 1994) and that cause-related marketing may be effective for only certain types
of products (Strahilevitz and Myers 1998). (N oneconomic Objectives for campaigns do
exist and will be discussed later.) Only twelve percent of consumers considered a good
cause the most important factor in making a purchase decision (Smith and Stodghill
1994). Ahead of good cause were past brand experiences (71%), price (62%), a
company’s reputation for quality (56%) and word of mouth recommendations (31%).
Additionally, one international case study suggests that cause-related marketing
campaigns can have adverse effects on attitudes toward the company (Garcia, Gibaja and
Mujika 2003). In a country where 89% of those surveyed reported that the social
responsibility of a company is very important or important, Spanish citizens support their
beliefs through a willingness to pay more for products at the center of CRM campaigns
and are willing to switch brands in order to support a CRM campaign (F undacion
Empresa y Sociedad 1997). Despite the welcoming climate for support of social causes,
PepsiCo still managed to execute an unsuccessful CRM campaign. Pepsi signed a three-
year general cooperation agreement with an NPO that was well-known and important to
Pepsi’s target market of 12 to 24 year olds. Negative reactions to the campaign were
based on indignation that a large multinational company had co-opted the party line of
the non—proﬁt sector in Spain and had actually tried to improve upon the rallying cry.
These actions were seen as trying to show-up the hard working and dedicated people in

the non-proﬁt sector while simultaneously trying to improve Pepsi’s proﬁts.

25

 

Other ﬁndings for negative reactions to a CRM campaign came as a result of an
alliance between a liquor store and a campaign to promote responsible drinking
(Mizereski, Mizerksi and Sadler 2001). This alliance is a negative ﬁt as later deﬁned by
Gourville and Rangan (2004) because of the conﬂict between the business of the donor
and the mission of the social cause. However, the researchers expected this negative ﬁt
to, in fact, be a close ﬁt because the social cause was directly and obviously related to the
core competencies of the business. That close ﬁt, in turn, was expected to positively
inﬂuence purchase intentions. Stronger support was found for a campaign that associated
the liquor store with a campus safety campaign. Researchers did not expect this ﬁnding
because campus safety is not directly related to the competencies of a liquor store.

Experimental research also supports the latter survey ﬁndings (Brown and Dacin
1997). Because of the difﬁculty in evaluating attempts to improve corporate images, the
researchers focused on the supposed beneﬁts of being a corporate “good guy” (p. 68).
Looking at consumer evaluations of corporations and products, Brown and Dacin found
support for the assertion that touting a corporation’s ability more effectively inﬂuences
consumer attitudes than touting a corporation’s social responsibility. Figure 1.3 shows the
path of the model Brown and Dacin tested in their initial study. In an experiment with a
hypothetical company and a hypothetical product, the researchers found that the social
responsibility of a corporation did not reﬂect on consumers’ evaluations of the product.
Additionally, the social responsibility of the product did not reﬂect on the consumer
evaluation of the product. Expanding their study to look at real companies, Brown and
Dacin found similar results. (See Figure 1.4.) The only signiﬁcant difference was that in

using participants’ corporate associations (deﬁned as all information a person holds about

26

a company) of real corporations, there was a relationship between a product’s social
responsibility and consumer evaluation of that product.

Figure 1.3
Inﬂuence of Corporate Associations on New Product Evaluations: Study One

.27a

Prod ctS h'st' ti
(3.3m/ u Op 1 rca on .34
(4.47)
Co rat
”’0 C so
16

Ability °

17.78) °

(2.04)
.26 Corporate Evaluation — Product Evaluation

.09c
Corporate (1.04) Product W
Social __ Social Responsibility (1.24)
Responsibility

8 - Standardized coefﬁcients
b - T-values are shown in parentheses
c - path no significant at p< .05.

Figure 1.4
Influence of Corporate Associations on New Product Evaluations: Study TWo

.27a
(390)13/ Product Sophrstrcatron .38
(4.5)
Corporate 41
Abrlrty \Q ‘15
(-l .77)
.18 Corporate Evaluation -— Product Evaluation
(215/
-.02c
Corporate (-.18) Product .24
Social __ Social Responsibility (2.88)
Responsibility

a — Standardized coefﬁcients
b — T-values are shown in parentheses
c — path no signiﬁcant at p< .05.

27

In a study that posits cause-related marketing in opposition to a traditional
marketing strategy (a cents-off coupon), evidence was found that cause-related marketing
may be a viable alternative to traditional marketing strategies, but not for all product
categories (Strahilevitz and Myers 1998). Using both experimental designs and a ﬁeld
study, Strahilevitz and Myers found that participants’ reactions to charity donation offers
depended on whether the offer was associated with a practical product or a frivolous
product. Citing research that claims purchasing products from different product
categories evokes different emotions, Strahilevitz and Myers tested which product
category purchases are more analogous with cause-related marketing and which are better
suited for traditional marketing strategies. Based on the idea that donations to charity,
like other forms of altruism, provide consumers with a “warm glow” (p. 434), the
researchers hypothesized that consumers would be more interested in the warm glow
when they were purchasing a product that elicited a guilty feeling—a frivolous product.
Statistical support was found for their hypothesis suggesting that cause-related marketing
as a purchase incentive might not be effective for all product categories.

In a related study, Stahilevitz examined the product type and magnitude of
donation for interaction effects (1999). Again, the author found that consumers responded
better to cause-related incentives associated with hedonistic behaviors. Additionally,
when consumers were offered a chance to make a donation or receive a discount on the
price of their purchase, the author found that the effect of the magnitude of the donation
interacted with the effect of the product type. Speciﬁcally, a lower magnitude of donation
was consistently chosen regardless of product type, but consumer decision to choose a

high magnitude of donation (instead of a high magnitude of discount) was inﬂuenced by

28

product type. When choosing between a high magnitude of donation or a high magnitude
of discount, more consumers choose the donation for luxury hedonistic products than for
practical products.

Studies of the effectiveness of cause-related marketing have shown that cause-
related marketing can elicit a positive consumer response. However, studies have also
shown that CRM can backﬁre and that traditional marketing strategies could be more
effective. What allows for the discrepancies in research ﬁndings of Smith and Stodghill,
Brown and Dacin, Strahilevitz and Myers and the research cited in support of cause-
related marketing (Ross, Patterson and Stutts 1992, Dahl and Lavack 1995, Cone 1999)
are the differences in the research executed. Researchers found that cause-related
marketing is effective in distinguishing between parity products. With a marketplace
cluttered with parity products, this distinction is important. Consumers will choose
products associated with CRM when they feel that all other product attributes are
comparable. This distinction also help explain why some research suggests that CRM is
effective while Smith and Stodghill found that consumers ﬁrst look to price and quality
before concerning themselves with a corporation’s social responsibility. If all product
attributes are similar (price and quality, for example) consumers will respond to cause-
related marketing. This outlines the basic differences in the research—whether the
research was about how consumers evaluate a single product or about how consumers
choose between products. While the Strahilevitz and Myers research focused on choosing
between products, the study compared purchase decisions between product categories

and did not look to purchase decisions between comparable products.

29

 

Antecedents to Eﬁective CRM

Once it is accepted that cause-related marketing might work, the next question
arises: what conditions are necessary to make it work? Studies have suggested that the
nurturing personalities of women (Ross, Patterson and Stutts 1992) or the need to assuage
guilt (Strahilevitz and Myers 1998) are parts of the process that allow cause-related
marketing to inﬂuence consumers, but these assertions have not been directly tested. The
nature of the consumer has been one way to explain differing response to CRM
campaigns. Cognitive measures like involvement with the social causes, attitude toward
the social cause and personality traits have been examined as antecedents to effective
CRM campaigns. Other studies have focused on the nature of the alliance between the
cause and the company, including examining the type of cause, location of the cause, the
size of the donation, and the match between the cause and the corporate alliance partner.

An early CRM study actually looked at both the nature of the campaign and the
nature of the consumer. Berger, Cunningham and Kozinets (1996) compared three
different ﬁameworks for effective cause-related marketing. The researchers looked to see
if involvement determines the inﬂuence of cause-related marketing or if the CRM claims
actually inﬂuenced involvement. Using the ELM (Elaboration Likelihood Model) and the
heuristic-systematic frameworks to test whether involvement determines the inﬂuence of
cause-related marketing, the researchers contrasted those two ﬁameworks with the MOA
(motivation, opportunity and attitude) framework that suggests the claim in cause-related
marketing inﬂuences involvement. Berger, Cunningham and Kozinets found that when a
strong cause is associated with an advertisement, consumer interest and involvement with

the advertisement are increased. This increased interest and involvement also increases

30

 

attitude toward the company. Similar ﬁndings were not found for advertisements
associated with a weak cause.

The type of cause has been found to inﬂuence consumer response to cause-related
marketing in the Generation Y cohort (Cui et al. 2003). In an experiment that contrasted
elements of the nature of the alliance with elements of the natures of the consumer, Cui et
al. found that cause-related marketing campaigns that support disaster relief elicit a more
positive response than campaigns that support ongoing causes—a similar ﬁnding to
Ellen, Mohr and Webb 2000. However, the Generation Y consumers responded best to
campaigns that were part of long-term support on the part of the corporation. The
respondents did not prefer local causes over national causes. Geography was also not an
important inﬂuence on the nature of the consumer—respondent’s hometown had no
inﬂuence on consumer response. Women reported more positive attitudes than men, and
social science majors reported more positive attitudes than natural science majors. Other
research also supports the premise that Generation Y responds well to cause-related
marketing and is willing to switch brands when the cause is right (Ligos 1999).

Another study that analyzed how the nature of the consumer and the nature of the
alliance interact to affect consumer response to CRM found that cause involvement and
the donation size inﬂuenced purchase intentions (Hajjat 2003). Through experimental
design, the authors found that when consumers were highly involved with a cause, they
described cause-related marketing as more effective than traditional marketing tactics
when the donation level was high. Conversely, consumers who reported low involvement
with a cause described cause-related marketing as more effective than traditional

marketing tactics when the donation level was low.

31

Setting aside involvement with the cause, Lafferty, Goldsmith and Hult (2004)
also investigated the inﬂuence of the nature of the consumer and the nature of the alliance
on consumer response to a cause-brand alliance. The researchers found that pre-exposure
attitude toward the cause and pre-exposure attitude toward the company were good
predictors of attitude toward the alliance. Attitude toward the alliance was, in turn, a good
predictor of post-exposure attitudes toward the cause and toward the corporate donor.
The inﬂuence of the nature of the alliance was also investigated by comparing consumer
perceptions of the ﬁt of the brand and product category to attitudes toward the alliance. A
positive relationship was found for perceptions of brand ﬁt, but not for product category.

Consumer attitudes are frequently measured concepts related to the nature of the
consumer. One study compared the attitudes of the consumer to consumer values in a
cross—cultural study (Lavack and Kropp 2003). Comparing the responses of Korean
citizens to that of Canadians, Norwegians and Australians, the researchers found that
attitudes toward CRM are related to personal values such as the internal values of self-
fulﬁllment and self-respect and the external values of security and sense of belonging.
Additionally, the Canadian and Australian respondents reported more positive attitudes
toward cause-related marketing than Koreans.

Consumer perceptions that their values are shared by corporate donors can lead to
successful cause-related marketing efforts (N owak and Clarke 2003). Consumers are
likely to accept the role of business in society and the role of cause-related marketing
when the consumers have a high level of cognitive moral development. Cognitive moral
development allows a consumer to balance the interests and goals of wide-ranging and

dissimilar organizations. This development allows consumers to understand what

32

businesses have in common with consumers and with not-for-proﬁt organizations. In a
conceptual article that focuses on associative learning principles, the authors also report
that shared values between a corporation and an NPO can lead to relationship
commitment and trust.

Consumer identiﬁcation with a corporation is also dependent on consumer values
(Lichtenstein, Drumwright and Braig 2004). In addition to consumer values, corporate
social responsibility can inﬂuence consumer identiﬁcation with a corporation. Consumers
who ﬁnd commonality in their personal values and the values of a corporation are said to
identify with the corporation. Consumers who identify with a corporation are more likely
to support the business of that corporation. The commonality of values can also lead
consumers to support businesses who have a poor record of social responsibility because
consumers see supporting the cause-brand alliance as a way to encourage the
rehabilitation of the corporation.

Multiple authors have tested the effects of congruent or compatible matches
between a cause and a brand with mixed results between studies (Brown and Dacin 1997;
Ellen, Mohr and Webb 2000; Mizerski, Mizerski and Sandler 2001; Porter and Kramer
2002; Pracejus and Olsen 2004; Trimble and Rifon 2006). (See Figure 1.5 for the Berger,
Cumringham and Drumwright (2004) list of different types of similarity or ﬁt.) One study
even found mixed results within itself (Ellen, Mohr and Webb 2000).

Researchers predicted that consumer responses to a CRM campaign would be
most positive when the cause chosen for a CRM was incongruent with the core business
of the corporate donor and when the cause was related to a disaster instead of an ongoing

social problem. Additionally, researchers predicted that consumer response to a CRM

33

would be most positive when the corporate donation required expending effort on the part
of the donor and when the donor seemed heavily committed. Support for the congruence
predication was dependent on the type of retailer involved in the CRM campaign.
Consumers reported no difference in attitudes toward campaigns, regardless of
congruence level, for grocery stores. For building supply stores, marginal support was
found for the assertion that incongruent partners in a CRM campaign will elicit more
positive consumer response. Stronger support was found for the prediction about the type
of cause. Consumer response was more positive in reaction to a disaster relief CRM.
Additionally, consumer response to the CRM was more positive when the donors
expended effort by donating products instead of cash.

A qualitative study found that respondents believed that congruence must exist
between the customer and the cause and the customer and the corporate donor
(Broderick, Jogi and Garry 2003). For instance, respondents said,

“I think that customers should be able to associate with the cause

and company together . . . it would be ridiculous if say a big

slaughterhouse decided to link up with a charity like the animal rights, I

mean you couldn’t really imagine the two working together” (R8-

Customer).

“Because being a woman, I feel that a cause such as breast cancer

does interest women in particular because so many of us are affected by

it” (R4-Customer) (p. 594)

Responses to in—depth interviews suggested that consumers are very familiar with popular

campaigns like Avon’s work for breast cancer awareness. Additionally, the majority of

respondents felt conﬁdent that the promised donations were made appropriately.

34

Figure 1.5

Types of Fit (Berger, Cunningham and Drumwright 2004)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fit Beneﬁts Created Questions to Assess Current Fit and Potential for
Dimension IncreasiﬁFit
Mission Fit Attention, priority, Is involvement in the social alliance an expression of the
share of mind company’s mission or vision?
Is the focal cause at the core of the mission of the
nonproﬁt?
Resource Fit Dependence and Does each party have resources that the other needs and
differential advantage would otherwise have difﬁculty in accessing? If so, are
these resources vital to creating a differential advantage
for the other?
Management Managerial Do the leaders of the two organizations have personal
Fit engagement and chemistry?
srmport
Work Force Enhancing Is there a ﬁt between the company’s work force and the
Fit organizational cause such that they have or will develop an afﬁnity for
identiﬁcation, the cause and become involved in grassroots efforts?
providing volunteer
support
Target Market Creating differential Is there a demographic, geographic, and/or psychographic
Fit advantage, providing ﬁt between the members of the target market such that
volunteer srmport they have or will develop an afﬁnity for the cause?
Product! Creating value Is there a demographic, geographic, and/or psychographic
Cause Fit through co-branding ﬁt between the members of the target market such that
they have or will develop an affinity for the cause?
Are the nonproﬁt’s constituents opinion leaders or key
purchase inﬂuencers vis-a-vis the company’s product?
Cultural Fit Ease of Has the nonproﬁt adopted business practices?
implementation and
management Does the company have a participative management
style?
Are the organizational values of the parties compatible?
Are people valued in the same way by both
organizations?
Cycle Fit Timing congruence Are the business cycles of the ﬁrm and the ﬁmd raising
cycles of the nonproﬁt aligned?
Do the schedules of the two organizations coincide
61103ng permit collaboration on key tasks?
Evaluation Fit Shared perception of Have both parties speciﬁed the measures they will use to
success assess the effectiveness of the alliance?

 

 

Can each party embrace and support the other’s primary
measure of success?

Have mutual or joint measures of success been created
for the alliance?

 

35

 

Other research has examined the inﬂuence of donation size on consumer response
(Holmes and Kilbane 1993; Dahl and Lavack 1995; Strahilevitz 1999; Hajjat 2003;
Subrahmanyan 2004). The earliest study on the effect of donation size found that
donation size was not a good predictor of consumer attitudes or purchase intentions
(Holmes and Kilbane 1993). In an experiment that meant to test the impact of donation
size in a campaign for a music store, a relationship between consumer attitudes toward a
campaign and consumer purchase intentions was found. However, no statistically
signiﬁcant results were found for either the price of the item or the donation size.

When donation size was investigated in Singapore, the results were quite different
(Subrahmanyan 2004). The evidence from an exploratory experiment suggests that
Chinese Singaporeans are willing to pay a price premium in order to support a CRM
campaign and that they were more likely to support a campaign if the respondents knew
how large of a donation would be made to the charity. One ﬁnding of this study contrasts
with the research done in the United States. The Singaporeans were more likely to
support a cause-related marketing campaign for practical products than for hedonistic
products.

One later study actually analyzes how consumers estimate donation size when
absolute donation amounts are not provided (Olsen, Pracejus and Brown 2003). In an
empirical experiment, the authors found that even consumers with accounting training
frequently overestimated the amount of a donation. A commonly made mistake stems
from consumer use of the purchase price to estimate the donation size when the cause-
related marketing campaign explicitly states that the donation will be a function of proﬁts

and not sales. Additionally, consumers report more positive attitudes and stronger

36

purchase intentions when they believe that a larger donation will be made. As most
consumers overestimate the donation size, the effect on attitudes and purchase intentions
is typically dependent on improperly made assumptions. In a related study, the same
authors found that most advertising copy explaining a cause-related marketing campaign
is vague (69.9%) while some of the copy estimates donation amounts (25.6%) and very
little advertising copy (4.5% ) provides calculable information. Based on ﬁndings that the
strength of consumer response is a function of donation size, the ﬁndings that 95% of
CRM ads use language that consumers frequently misunderstand or can not understand
have implications for advertising strategy and public policy.

Other tactical considerations for effective use of cause-related marketing stem
from prosocial behavior and social exchange theory (Ross, Stutts and Patterson 1990). In
order to provide guidance for the design of future CRM campaigns, the authors
developed a survey that measured consumer recall of CRM campaigns, consumers’
purchase intentions, consumers’ reaction to donation size and consumer attitudes toward
CRM efforts. Over half of the respondents could name one or more CRM campaigns. The
Ronald McDonald House and Procter and Gamble’s support of the Special Olympics
were two of the most ﬁ'equently named cause-brand alliances. Less than half of the
respondents claimed to have purchased a product because of its association with a social
cause, but women (51%) were more likely to do so than men (42%). Over two-thirds of
the respondents had positive attitudes toward CRM campaigns and that positive attitude
translated into a willingness to try new products because of the CRM associations. Fifty-
eight percent of women agreed that a CRM campaign could tempt them to try a new

product while only 42% of men would be tempted.

37

 

 

Public Perceptions.

With overriding concerns that consumers will have a negative reaction to a CRM
campaign, some studies have focused solely on the public perceptions of the practice of
CRM. Generally speaking, the response has been positive.

The 1999 Cone/Roper Report suggests that consumer perceptions of cause-related
marketing are mostly positive, but as both corporations and NPOs run the risk of negative
publicity and ill will if a cause-related marketing campaign goes awry, it is important to
look at how different people feel about cause-related marketing in general. Understanding
consumer perceptions of cause-related marketing campaigns can help marketers to better
understand how consumers will'react to future campaigns. Webb and Mohr (1998)
developed a typology for consumers that categorizes public perception of cause-related
marketing. Using in-depth interviews that questioned consumers’ knowledge of cause-
related marketing, consumers’ perceptions of corporations and NPOs afﬁliated with
cause-related marketing, consumers’ attribution of motive for cause-related marketing
and cause-related marketing’s ability to inﬂuence purchase intentions, the researchers
tried to ascertain if different types of consumers respond differently to cause-related
marketing. The respondents and their answers were sorted into four different categories:
skeptical consumers, balancing consumers, attribution-oriented consumers and socially
concerned consumers. The skeptics viewed cause-related marketing as a manipulative
gimmick designed to separate consumers from their disposable income. The balancing
consumers tried to ﬁnd a happy medium between their need for altruism and the
traditional purchase criteria they used in making purchase decisions. Attribution-oriented

consumers were interested in a corporation’s motive for participating in a cause-related

38

marketing campaign. Finally, the consumers who were socially concerned were willing to
overlook a corporation’s motive if the campaign would beneﬁt a cause. They believe that
the end justiﬁes the means. Of an interesting note for marketers, the socially concerned
consumers were the most educated members of the sample. Overall, the interview
participants had a positive attitude toward ﬁrms (78%) and NPOs (94%) affiliated with
cause-related marketing campaigns. The main skepticism voiced by most participants
concerned how much money a corporation would really donate to charity based on its
cause-related marketing campaign.

The concerns of the public should not be ignored because consumer skepticism
can lead to negative consequences for the corporate donors (Polonsky and Wood 2001).
In a conceptual discussion of harmful CRM tactics, the authors suggested that skepticism
can lead to a loss in support for CRM campaigns and a loss in consumer donations to
charities. Additionally, increased consumer skepticism can lead to a loss of corporate
credibility. Overall, consumer skepticism is predicted to limit the effectiveness of CRM
in general.

Similar positive attitudes toward ﬁrms and NPOs in cause-related marketing
campaign were found in New Zealand (Chaney and Dolli 2001). In face-to-face surveys,
250 New Zealanders explained their attitudes toward cause-related marketing campaigns
and the inﬂuence, if any, the campaign had on their purchase behavior. Overall, the
respondents disagreed with statements that claimed that the CRM takes advantage of
charities (68%) and that charities linked to CRM had “sold out” (87%). Additionally, the

respondents denied that their own support of CRM activities would reduce the amount of

39

donations they made to charities (88%). Survey responses suggested that consumers have

better recall of the NPOS in CRM campaigns than of the corporate partners.

Participant perceptions.

As important as knowing how the public perceives cause-related marketing is
knowing how corporations and NPOS who participate in the campaigns perceive cause-
related marketing. In the age of mergers and acquisitions, downsizing and outsourcing,
cause-related marketing is a natural result for corporations looking for a new marketing
strategy and justiﬁcation for their social responsibility and corporate philanthropy (Smith
2003). Because NPOS often run on a shoe-string budget, the introduction of donations
ﬁorn cause-related marketing campaigns is a new source not to be ignored. The beneﬁts
of new income must be counter-balanced with the possible risks for the NPO. Some risks
include: reduced donations, tainted partners, overwhelming success and structural
atrophy (Andreason 1996). The fear of losing donations is two-pronged. NPOS fear that
consumers who purchase products linked with cause-related marketing campaigns will no
longer give outright donations. Apprehension also stems from the concern that cause-
related marketing campaigns will replace (instead of complement) traditional corporate
philanthropy. Some argue that by incorporating a charitable donation into a business
transaction, the ethical commitment to the social cause is mediated by the marketing
technique (Smith and Higgins 2000). Structural atrophy dovetails into the risk of reduced
donations. If NPOS begin to rely on cause-related marketing campaigns for donations,
they may lose the ability and know-how to collect other donations. Guilt by association

with tainted partners is another real risk for NPOS. If an NPO is linked with a corporation

40

that is categorically socially irresponsible except for its participation in a cause-related
marketing campaign, the NPO’s reputation can be damaged irreparably. As mentioned
previously, NPOS are stereotypically thought of as tragically low on funds, so at ﬁrst
glance the possibility of overwhelming success does not seem like a risk or disadvantage.
However, if a cause-related marketing campaign elicits a strong and powerful response,
the NPO may not have the personnel or inﬁ'astructure to handle the inﬂux of donations
and requests for aid.

One empirical study examined the consequences of cause-related marketing
campaigns for charities (Basil and Herr 2003). In a 2 (ﬁt) x 4 (corporate donor) design,
the researchers tested the effects of negative or positive ﬁt in a cause-related marketing
campaign. (Negative ﬁt is explained below as deﬁned by Gourville and Rangan 2004.)
The researchers found that when consumers had a positive pro-exposure attitude toward
the corporate donor charities involved in CRM campaigns were positively affected.
Conversely, the reputation of a charity that partnered with a corporate donor that elicited
negative attitudes from consumers could be harmed by the alliance. Other harmful
consequences for charities resulted from joining an alliance with a negative ﬁt.

Other conceptual research has addressed the possible consequences for NPOS in
participating in a CBA (Polonsky and McDonald 2000). Objectives for participation in a
CBA by for-proﬁt partners have included such behavior and cognitive outcomes as sales
generation, purchase activity, visibility gain, and image enhancement. If you consider
donations to NPOS as similar to product purchase for the for-proﬁt partners, all of these

objectives could be shared with the non-proﬁt partners. However, any beneﬁt to CBA

41

participation must outweigh the possible consequence of perceived loss of integrity from
the taint of commercialization.

From the corporate point of view, the beneﬁts of cause-related marketing
outnumber the risks. As mentioned with the example of Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, an
effective cause-related marketing campaign breaks through advertising clutter and offers
low cost exposure (File and Prince 1998). The campaign can also sway consumers,
broaden the consumer base, enhance a company’s image, offer a differentiated image
from competitors, inﬂuence consumer attitudes, provide positive publicity and improve
relations among the trade and sales force. It is important to point out that not all of the
possible beneﬁts offer a tangible and direct economic advantage. This being said, some
corporations are using cause-related marketing to further their research and development
(Kanter 1999). In these instances, cause-related marketing is a business investment that
can help with retention of employees and passing of public policy as well as development
of new products and technology.

Contrary to cynical expectations, many corporations go into cause-related
marketing campaigns with non-economic objectives (Drumwright 1996). Research shows
that most cause-related marketing campaigns have neither mere economic objectives nor
mere “do-gooder” social objectives. Instead the corporate intent for cause-related
marketing campaigns often lies on a continuum between economic goals and social goals.
(See Figure 1.6.) What is encouraging for the consumer is that social campaigns are more
often initiated by altruistic motivations of a corporation instead of at the instigation of an
advertising agency trying to ﬁnd new ways to sell products. In a series of personal

interviews of corporate management and agency management, Drumwright found that 68

42

of the campaigns in questions were done on the behest of the corporation while only four

were developed because of a suggestion by the advertising agency.

Figure 1.6.
Continuum of Corporate Objectives

 

Economic Mixed Noneconomic
Objectives Objectives (Social)
Objectives

Later conceptual work on cause-related marketing articulated the difference
between immediate, economic beneﬁts and other beneﬁts that are more long-term and
less directly related to ﬁnancial gain (Gourville and Rangan 2004). Immediate economic
beneﬁts and the beneﬁts of positively inﬂuencing consumers are considered ﬁrst-order
beneﬁts. Second-order beneﬁts are those that are related to internal publics such as
shareholders and employees. Long-term, indirect ﬁnancial gains that can accrue through
second-order beneﬁts are decreased employee absenteeism and stronger allegiance with
shareholders. Additionally, increased awareness of a social cause or NPO as a ﬁinction of
participation in a CRM campaign can lead to increased public support. That, too, is a
second-order beneﬁt. In order for ﬁrst-order and second-order beneﬁts to be possible, the
ﬁt of the partnership between the corporate donor and the non-proﬁt recipient must be
assessed. Negative ﬁt should be avoided by ensuring that no partnership is created that
includes a business whose goals conﬂict with the stated mission of the social cause or

NPO. Additionally, in order to realize second-order beneﬁts, the ﬁt between the CRM

43

partners should provide a second-order ﬁt. That is, the mission of the NPO should have a
strong appeal for publics related to second-order beneﬁts-—the employees and

shareholders of a corporation. See Figure 1.7 for model of effective cause-related

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

marketing campaigns.
Figure 1.7
Gourville and Rangan model
Non-Proﬁt For-Proﬁt Firm ‘0 Employees, Investors,
Organization Business Associates
5a

 

0 Social Causes 7
Potential
' Customers

Donors to Clients of
the Cause the Cause

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other second-order beneﬁts have been reported by Meyer (1999). Speciﬁcally,
Home Depot executives believe that community goodwill is generated ﬁ'om its support of
community-related social causes. That good will is reported to ease Home Depot’s way in
meetings with public ofﬁcials, like zoning boards, when opening new stores.
Additionally, the second-order beneﬁts include low employee turnover. Home Depot’s
employee turnover is much lower than the industry average, and Home Depot executives
credit their social cause efforts on behalf of affordable housing, at-risk youth,
environmentalism and disaster preparedness and relief as a strong inﬂuence on employee

morale.

Final Thoughts.

Using cause-related marketing campaigns is a widely accepted and popular
marketing strategy for many corporations. Despite this popularity, there is little empirical
research to guide practitioners in making decisions about the campaigns. Much could be
studied about the effect of the links between corporations and NPOS, the inﬂuence on
consumer attitudes and purchase intentions caused by campaigns and the possibility that
different product categories elicit different responses to the campaigns. For a marketing
strategy that commands over $630 million annually, corporations and NPOS should have
more to base their marketing decisions on than intuition, hope, anecdotal evidence and
conjecture. While the transfer effect as an explanation for the effects of cause-related
marketing has face validity, sound marketing decisions are rarely based on what is
plausible and possible. Instead companies should be concerned with the probability that
cause-related marketing campaigns can provide ﬁrst-order and second—order beneﬁts.
From the research outlined in this paper, marketers interested in forming an alliance with
an NPO or social cause face several uncertainties. Evidence exists that suggests cause-
related marketing does work. However, there is little consensus on how it works, how

well it works, and what triggers different consumer responses to different campaigns.

45

CHAPTER TWO

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

As consumers exposed to the same cause-related marketing campaign do not
respond identically, we need a better understanding of the mental process that allows
these varied responses. Recent research suggests that consumer acceptance of a cause-
brand alliance drives the positive responses to an alliance (T rimble and Rifon 2006).
However, a void in our knowledge still exists in determining how consumers come to
accept or reject an alliance and why the acceptance can result in a positive consumer
response.

At its heart, CRM is an attempt to persuade consumers to purchase a product.
Therefore, persuasion theories can be used as a guide to explain consumer response to
cause-brand alliances. Initially, consumer acceptance of a CRM persuasion attempt can
be explained by the amount of cognitive elaboration activated in consumers. Persuasion
theory (Petty and Cacioppo 1981) states that cognitive elaborations can lead to resistance
to a persuasion attempt. Increased elaboration can also increase judgments of the
elements central to persuasion attempt. This resistance and subsequent judgments could
lead to refusal to comply with a persuasion attempt. Conversely, a persuasion attempt that
does not activate cognitive elaborations would result in fewer judgments of the
persuasion attempt and increase the possibility of compliance with the persuasion
attempt. Similarly, the persuasion knowledge model describes situations where a

judgment occurs as a result of change in meaning of consumer knowledge (F riestad and

46

Wright 1994). With the PKM as with other persuasion theory, the results of the
judgments (or elaborations) are possible resistance to a persuasion attempt.

The judgments that greater elaboration can foster are an important part of the
mental process that leads to either consumer rejection or acceptance of a persuasion
attempt. Corporate executives interested in using CRM have voiced concerns about
consumers making critical judgments about a corporation’s participation in a cause-brand
alliance (Ellen, Mohr and Webb 2000). The basic concern is that consumers will judge
the reason for a corporation’s participation solely as a means to increase sales and that
this judgment will reduce or eliminate any goodwill or positive effect of the participation.
This type of judgment, focused on the reason that the corporation has chosen to
participate in a cause-brand alliance, is an attribution of motive. Attributions are
inferences (or judgments) that individuals make about the cause or the reason why of an
action or event (Heider 1946). When presented with persuasion attempts, individuals
might wonder why their compliance is desired or necessary. The environment of the
persuasion attempt provides cues as to which information is salient, and the salient cues
are then used to make causal inferences. These ones can either be intrinsic (personal)
factors or extrinsic (situational) factors. Research based on one attribution theory,
Kelley’s discounting principle (1972), suggests that intrinsic factors or motives will be
discounted when an extrinsic factor can be used for the attribution.

For executives interested in using cause-brand alliances as a promotional tactic,
the tendency of consumers to focus on extrinsic factors in order to form attributions
(Moore, Mowen and Reardon 1994; Sparkman 1982) reinforces the necessity of creating

cause-brand alliances that do not trigger cognitive elaborations. Factors extrinsic to the

47

CRM tactic typically focus on the for-proﬁt nature of the corporations while intrinsic
factors focus on the socially responsible nature of the corporation. Extrinsic factors, then,
lead to corporate-centric attributions of motive. The intrinsic factors include a concern for
others, like consumers and the moral or ethical value of the social cause. If social
responsibility is not the motivating factor for a corporation’s involvement, the other

obvious extrinsic motives involve corporation gain—monetary or reputational.

Congruence Effects and Attribution of Corporate Motive

Congruence effects through schema theory offer insight into persuasion attempts
that would not trigger elaboration. Schema theory outlines a mental process of organizing
knowledge about an object or domain (Taylor and Crocker 1981). A schema cognitively
represents each object or domain, and the life experiences of each individual provide the
structure for organizations as well as inﬂuencing the processing of information related to
each schema. One way that individual life experiences are useful under schema theory is
that they allow individuals to makes comparisons between new and unfamiliar
information or concepts and existing schema. Individuals will use their life experiences
and existing schema to determine how relevant or congruent the new information is. The
degree of relevancy or congruency determines how consumers respond to new
information. New schema that are congruent or similar to existing schema are processed
diﬂermﬂy than those that are incongruent. Incongruent schema create more inferences
about the object the schema represents (Hastie 1984). If an increase of inferences or
judgments leads to attribution of extrinsic motives, then the increased inferences of

incongruent schema should lead to attributions of extrinsic motivation and the resistance

48

that such attributions elicit. Therefore, in a persuasion attempt similar schema are less
likely to result in elaboration and extrinsic attributions. Conversely, the subsequent
increase in inferences of dissimilar schema would result in more elaboration and
resistance to a persuasion attempt.

Thus far, the discussion of schema theory has focused on the similarities or
congruence of the domain of the schema, but schema theory can also provide an
explanation for the triggering of cognitive evaluations based on the expected (or
unexpected) nature of behaviors regardless of the congruency of the schema involved.
When individuals store information about prison wardens and prison inmates, the schema
created may share some similarities. For example, prison wardens and the prison inmates
are similar in that their days are spent in the same location and that they have similar
knowledge of prison life as well as the rights of the incarcerated. Despite the similarities
between the two, no one expects prison wardens and former inmates to spend time
together outside of a prison. Therefore, even when the domain of two schemas is
congruent, individuals may still ﬁnd a pairing of those schemas to be unexpected. As
with congruent schema, behaviors that are consistent with expectations are less likely to
trigger elaborations (Hastie 1984) while inconsistent or unexpected behaviors are more
like to result in elaboration, judgments and resistance.

For CRM attempts, congruence effects and schema theory provide a framework to
predict the amount of elaboration triggered by a cause-brand alliance and the subsequent
consumer response. Studies of congruence effects in sponsorships are dominated by
studies of functional ﬁt between a sponsor and a cause, while the CRM literature is

littered with varied approaches ﬁ'om core competencies to consumer acceptance. Indeed,

49

there are several sources and dimensions to congruence in a CRM campaign, and a
consumer’s perception of the congruence of a CRM pairing is multidimensional. Using
schema as the foundation for cognitive modeling, we would propose that consumers have
a schema for the cause and the company, and that each of these schemas contained
several types of information. For the company, a consumer might have information
about the company's products, company's core competencies, and expectations for the
company's behavior. For the cause, the consumer might have information about NPOS
that support the cause, celebrities supporters of the cause and general nature of the cause.

Congruence is a term that suggests a matching or parallelism between two
objects. Thus, congruence between schema is based on common knowledge elements.
Congruence in schema might be psychologically experienced or perceived as a similarity
between the two objects in question. Thus, perceptions of congruence in an alliance
would include similarity between the cause and the brand as well as similarity between
the observed behavior and expected behavior—or the nature of the consumers exposed to
a CRM campaign. (See Figure 2.1.) Consumers could recognize congruence between two
elements of the alliance, or consumers could recognize congruence between an element
of the alliance and themselves. The congruence should determine the amount of
elaboration triggered. For the nature of the alliance, a congruent ﬁt between the business
of a corporation and a social cause would trigger the least amount of elaboration while an
incompatible or incongruent ﬁt should activate the most elaboration.

Additionally, the behavior of the company must match with the behavior
consumers expect of the corporation in order to avoid the activation of elaboration and

the consequent resistance produced by attributions of motive. Therefore, unexpected

50

behavior at the center of a cause-brand alliance could also activate cognitive elaboration
and the resulting attributions. Generally speaking, consumers expect corporations to
behave in a manner that will keep the corporation in business. Consumers may also have
expectations for corporate social responsibility, in general, or expectations for support of
speciﬁc causes. For some consumers, their relationships with a cause, or its personal
salience, may inﬂuence their expectations of corporate behavior such that the relationship
with the cause overrides the general expectation that a corporation will act ﬁscally
responsibly. A complete discussion of a consumer relationship with a cause can be found
later in this paper, but brieﬂy, some consumers focus great attention on either the people
affected by a cause or the cause itself. In these instances, the cause has great salience for
consumers. The increased salience of a social cause can help inﬂuence the type of
behavior consumers expect from corporations when the corporation is forming an
alliance with the speciﬁc cause with which the consumer has a relationship. With the
increased salience of the cause, consumers may perceive a good ﬁt between a cause and a
corporation in the absence of any functional similarity or when support of the cause

might be a ﬁnancial liability for the corporation.

Consumer Attribution and Level of Acceptance of a Cause-Brand Alliance

The family of attribution theories and the concept of elaboration can be used to
predict which cause-brand alliances will elicit greater elaboration and therefore a greater
tendency to judge or attribute a corporation’s intent for creating a cause-brand alliance.
Consumer attributions can then be used to predict behavioral outcomes. Applying these

concepts to CRM suggests that when cognitive elaboration about the alliance is not

51

triggered, consumers are less likely to make attributions of corporative proﬁt as the
reason for creating the cause-brand alliance. When consumers make fewer or weaker
proﬁt-related judgments about the cause-brand alliance, corporations can expect
consumers to be less resistant to a CRM persuasion attempt and more accepting of a
cause-brand alliance. Consumers, then, would be more likely to resist the persuasion
attempt and reject an alliance if their elaborations about the alliance have been triggered,
and they had the opportunity to judge or attribute the corporate motive to a desire to
proﬁt from the alliance.

One study that examined relationship between consumer attributions and their
outcomes compared different types of sponsorship-linked marketing (Rifon et al. 2004).
Researchers found that when consumers credited corporations with altruistic motives for
the sponsorship behaviors perceptions of corporate credibility were stronger. The
attribution of altruistic motives was more likely to happen when the sponsorship
partnership was congruent. The authors reported that a congruent sponsorship triggered
weaker cognitive elaborations. Weaker elaborations lead to attribution of altruistic
motives, instead of corporate-centric attributions, and those other-centric attributions
allowed for a more positive consumer response as seen through measures of perceptions
of corporate credibility and attitude toward the corporation.

Implicit in this process is the belief that limited elaboration is limited counter-
arguing. Limited counter-arguing creates little resistance to a schema. Therefore, the
limited elaborations and resistance can be viewed as an acceptance of a schema. For

CRM, fewer elaborations about a cause-brand alliance should limit a consumer’s

52

opportunity to argue against an alliance. Without arguments against an alliance,

consumers should be less likely to resist and more likely to accept an alliance.

H1: Consumers who attribute corporate participation in a cause-brand alliance
to corporate-centric motives are less accepting of the cause-brand alliance than

consumers who make attributions of other-centric motives.

New research in CRM suggests that consumer acceptance of a cause-brand
alliance leads to more positive attitudes toward the corporation and stronger perceptions
of corporate credibility (Trimble and Rifon 2006). Past research has found that attitudes
toward a corporation are a function of perceptions of corporate credibility (Rifon et a1
2004). Therefore, the positive response that an accepted cause-brand alliance generates
must ﬁrst be measured as perceptions of corporate credibility. The inﬂuence of corporate
credibility then inﬂuences attitudes toward the corporations. (See Figure 2.2 for a full

model of consumer response.)

H2: The greater the consumer acceptance of a cause-brand alliance, the
stronger the perceptions of corporate credibility.
H3: Corporate credibility perceptions are directly related to attitude toward the

corporation.

53

H4: The congruence between consumer schema and the nature of the cause-
brand alliance will inﬂuence attributions of corporate motive.

H4a: Consumers exposed to an incongruent ﬁt between the function of
the corporation and the social cause will make attributions of corporate-centric
motives.

H4b: Consumers exposed to a congruent ﬁt between the function of the
corporation and the social cause will make attributions of other-centric motives.
H5: When consumers have a strong relationship with a cause, consumer

expectations for corporate behavior will differ from the expectations of consumers who
do not have a strong relationship with the cause.

HSa: Consumers who identify with a cause are more likely to expect
corporate support of the cause than consumers who do not report a strong
relationship with the cause.

HSb: Consumers who expect corporate support of the cause are more
likely to make attributions of other-centric motives than consumers who do not
expect corporate support of the cause.

H5c: Consumers who do not expect corporate support of the cause are
more likely to make attributions of corporate-centric motives than consumers who

do expect corporate support of the cause.

54

FIGURE 2.1
Three Way Fit of CRM Relationships

 

Cause

 

Brand or Corporation Consumer or Target Market

 

 

 

The discussion of the process of accepting a CRM tactic has thus far focused on
the nature of the cause-brand alliance by describing the results of unexpected behavior
and incongruence or incompatible ﬁt in an alliance. However, as indicated in Figure 2.1,
the nature of the consumer is also important to the perceptions of the congruence of an
alliance. The consumer relationship with the corporation and the consumer relationship
with the cause need to be congruent with the nature of the alliance to avoid elaboration

and attributions about the corporate involvement in a cause-brand alliance.

Relationship with the Corporation
Applying schema theory and congruence effects to the opinions consumers hold
about corporations provides another demonstration of the importance of ﬁt or

congruence. Research shows that “people expect to agree with people they like and

55

disagree with people they dislike” (Eagly and Chaiken 1993, p. 141). Stretching that
statement to include organizations like for-proﬁt corporations and not-for-proﬁts that
support social causes, we can predict that people expect to disagree with organizations
that they dislike and agree with organizations that they do like. Additionally, previous
research shows that consumer perceptions of a corporation prior to exposure to a cause-
brand alliance are strong predictors of consumer response to an alliance (Lafferty,
Goldsmith and Hult 2004). Typical measures of consumer opinion of a corporation
include attitudes toward the corporation (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989) and perceptions of
corporate credibility (Newell and Goldsmith 2001). A liking or positive opinion of a
corporation would include a positive attitude toward the corporation and strong
perceptions of corporate credibility. Therefore, when consumers like a corporation or
have positive attitudes toward the corporation and strong perceptions of corporate
credibility, consumers expect to agree with the actions of the corporation. This
acceptance of corporate actions helps create a congruent ﬁt between the consumer and
the cause-brand alliance. As with the congruent ﬁt of the nature of the alliance, a
congruent ﬁt with the nature of the consumer, speciﬁcally the relationship with the
corporation, should prevent elaboration as to the motives of the corporation. Conversely,
consumers who have a negative relationship with a corporation should expect to disagree
with the corporation. Evidence of a negative relationship can be found through a negative
attitude toward the corporation and a weak perception of corporate credibility. This
negative relationship should make consumers more likely to elaborate on the motives of

the corporation.

56

The concept of relationship between a consumer and a corporation has face
validity and suggests the following research questions that will not be directly tested in
this study.

RQl: Do existing consumer attitudes toward the company inﬂuence elaborations
and attributions of corporate motive?

RQla: Do consumers with negative attitudes toward the company make
corporate-centric attributions?

Rle: Do consumers with positive attitudes toward the corporation
make other-centric attributions?

RQ2: Do existing consumer perceptions of corporate credibility inﬂuence
elaborations and attributions of corporate motive?

RQ2a: Do consumers with weak perceptions of corporate credibility
make corporate-centric attributions?
RQ2b: Do consumers with strong perceptions of corporate credibility

make other-centric attributions?

Characteristics of the Cause

Another set of antecedents can inﬂuence consumer acceptance of a cause-brand
alliance. These are the characteristics of the cause. A social cause is developed when a
matter of concern has a detrimental effect on society. Frequently, the social cause is an
effort to treat, cure, or remove the detriment. The detriment ﬁrst affects individuals but
creates widespread concern when the effects are shared by society directly and indirectly.

The effects can be shared directly when a considerable number of the members of a

57

society are directly affected, and the matter becomes a social cause. Additionally, society
may share the effects in an indirect manner when the side effects or byproducts of the
matter affect a considerable number of the members of the society.

For example, according to the American Heart Association, over 70 million
Americans suffer from at least one type of cardiovascular disease (Heart Disease and
Stroke Statistics—2005 Update). Indeed, as it’s the number one killer of Americans, it
seems almost ﬂippant to point out that heart disease directly affects a considerable
number of Americans. Unlike heart disease, though, there are many social causes that
detrimentally affect only a small number of people directly with further reaching indirect
effects. For example, a toxic spill by a chemical company directly affects the employees
and rescue workers exposed to the spill and the plant and animal wildlife exposed to the
spill. The number of lives directly affected may be less than one thousand. Indirectly,
however, the executives and the stockholders of the corporations are affected, as are the
people and wildlife that live downstream and downwind. Future generations can also be
affected by residual exposure. This indirect effect could increase the number of lives
affected to tens or hundreds of thousands. Therefore, the clean-up of toxic waste becomes
an issue for society, not just those directly affected.

The extent of the sharing of the effects by society is the social signiﬁcance (Cobb
and Elder 1972) of the cause. (This relevant concept is borrowed fi'om literature on
political issues.) The scope of social signiﬁcance can be measured by the ﬁnancial cost of
treatment, removal or cure or by the number of people affected. The perception of the
scope of social signiﬁcance can also be inﬂuenced by the amount of media coverage that

an issue or social cause receives. Therefore, social causes that are ﬁequently featured in

58

cause-brand alliances may seem to have more social signiﬁcance than causes that receive
less media attention. A cause with limited scope might only affect the consumers in a
limited geographical area or a tiny percentage of the overall population. When a cause
has limited scope its salience to the public at large is also limited. The importance of
greater salience of cause can be summarized by this explanation of the importance of
expansion of political issues:

Now we must consider the relationship between types of issues and the
sort of support they attract. The underlying proposition is that the greater the size
of the audience to which an issue can be enlarged, the greater the likelihood that it
will attain systemic agenda standing and thus access to a formal agenda . . . but
simply that there is an increased probability of success if the conﬂict is visible to
a large number of people (Cobb and Elder 1972, p. 110).

Therefore, social causes that are salient to an enlarged public will receive widespread
support. Social causes that receive support by consumers would create a congruent ﬁt of
a cause-brand alliance. As previously discussed, the congruent ﬁt would limit elaboration
about the cause-brand alliance, limit consumer attributions of corporate proﬁt motives
and increase the likelihood that a consumers will accept an alliance.

Other characteristics of political issues (Cobb and Elder 1972) that are applicable
to social causes and salience to the general public include the degree of speciﬁcity in
promoting the cause, the extent of the temporal relevance of the cause, the degree of
complexity of the cause and the degree of categorical precedence for the cause. The
degrees of speciﬁcity and complexity are similar but not identical. The former focuses on
the description of an issue while the latter deals with the perception of an issue. The
degree of speciﬁcity describes the level of abstractness or concreteness used in the

deﬁnition of an issue. The degree of complexity instead describes how simple or how

technical an issue is perceived to be. Simple issues and technical issues can both be

59

described in concrete terms. For both characteristics a greater degree can decrease the
salience to a larger public. Therefore, both concrete descriptions and technically
perceived issues would be more likely to trigger elaborations and the ensuing mental
process that leads to consumer rejection of a cause-brand alliance. Logically, the process
that leads to consumer acceptance of a cause-brand alliance would start with lesser
degrees of speciﬁcity and complexity. Conversely, a CBA that includes a social cause
perceived as simple and straightforward and described in vague and abstract terms should
be more acceptable to the general public.

Another characteristic of issues increases salience through its absence or
limitation. The degree of categorical precedence of an issue is determined by whether an
issue can be described as a routine matter or an extraordinary matter. Routine matters that
have a strong precedence are less likely to be salient to the general public. Extraordinary
matters without a precedent are more likely to be salient to the general public. For cause-
brand alliances, the application of this characteristic is not as clear-cut as the previously
discussed characteristics. At ﬁrst glance, the categorical precedence might imply that
once consumers have an awareness of a cause or familiarity of a cause the social cause
would lose its novelty and seem routine. In this instance, repeated exposure to cause-
brand alliances that feature the same social cause would decrease the salience for the
general public and increase the likelihood of elaboration and subsequent attributions of
corporate proﬁt motives. However, it is more likely that a social cause would be routine
if a consumer has a high probability of being affected by the social cause. For most
consumers, repeated exposure to CRM campaigns that focus on breast cancer research

would not make a diagnosis of breast cancer seem routine. Therefore, if consumers can

60

imagine easily coping with the matter of concern at the focus of social cause, the cause
has a high degree of categorical precedence, is less salient to the general public, and is
more likely to activate elaborations and judgments about any cause-brand alliance that
features that cause. When consumers are unfarrriliar with the treatments and procedures
necessary to cope with the matter of concern at the focus of a social cause, the cause has
a low degree of categorical precedence and is more likely to be salient to a general
public. Cause-brand alliances that feature a cause with a low degree of categorical
precedence would beneﬁt from the increased salience through a lack of elaboration,
fewer judgments and attributions of motive and an increased probability of acceptance of
the alliance.

The remaining characteristic outlined by Cobb and Elder helps increase salience
to the general public with a greater extent of the characteristic. That characteristic is the
extent of temporal relevance of a social issue or whether a social issue has short-term or
long-term relevance. For example, temporal relevance could be measured by the amount
of time necessary to resolve a political conﬂict. Similarly for a cause-brand alliance,
consumers can measure temporal relevance by estimating the amount of time needed to
treat or cure a social cause. When estimates of time are high or there is a greater degree
of temporal relevance the cause becomes salient to the general public and is less likely to
trigger elaborations.

All the characteristics of a cause can inﬂuence a consumer’s relationship with the
cause, but consumer inferences of most of the characteristics require a certain level of
knowledge about the cause before an estimation can be made. One of the characteristics,

the scope of the social signiﬁcance, is more easily accessible to consumers.

61

If the cognitive process that determines the level of acceptance of a cause-brand
alliance is dependent on the amount of elaboration triggered by the alliance, the most
inﬂuential characteristics would be those most accessible to the consumers. Therefore,
while all the characteristics have merit, the inﬂuence of the scope of social signiﬁcance
and the perception of injustice should be the best predictors of acceptance of a cause-
brand alliance.

H6: The characteristics of a social cause will inﬂuence the salience of the
cause that in turn inﬂuence elaborations and attributions of corporate motive.

H6a: When consumers perceive a social cause to have a lesser scope of
social signiﬁcation, they will make corporate-centric attributions of motive.
H6b: When consumers perceive a social cause to have a greater scope of

social signiﬁcation, they will make other-centric attributions of motives.

Characteristics of the Consumer

The second set of characteristic antecedents contains the personal characteristics
of the individual consumers. These characteristics include gender, the degree of
identiﬁcation with a cause and the degree of identiﬁcation with those affected by a cause.

Cobb and Elder (1972) described four different publics with respect to political
issues and treated these publics as if they contained distinct and separate populations.
(See Figure 2.3). Previous discussion has focused on the importance of making an issue
salient to the general public. Now, however, the focus shifts to the two publics most
likely to respond to political issues: the attention groups and the identiﬁcation groups.

Identiﬁcation groups consist of people with a “persistent sympathy” (p. 106) for those

62

affected by the political issue. Attention groups are deﬁned as those who focus their
attention on a particular issue while remaining disinterested in other issues. Identiﬁcation
groups focus on the people involved while attention groups focus on the issue itself. After
Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Shores in 2005, hurricane disaster relief became a
salient social cause for anyone who had a “persistent sympathy” with the residents of
New Orleans’ Ninth Ward. That sympathy allows consumers to identify with the people
affected by the hurricane even if hurricanes are not typically salient to the sympathetic
consumers. For examples, consumers who live in Michigan (a state relatively free of
hurricanes) could identify with the residents of the ninth Ward based on socio-economic
status or racial identity. That personal identiﬁcation with those affected by a cause is
lacking for members of an attentive group. Again, the characteristics of the cause make
the social cause salient for members of an attentive group—not the people involved.
American Red Cross volunteers and insurance company disaster response teams would
ﬁnd hurricane disaster relief a salient cause regardless of who was affected or which
geographical region was affected. Because of the salience of the cause both of these
groups are likely to involve themselves with a social cause before the attentive public or
the general public becomes aware of the issue.

Some distinctions are necessary when applying this description of publics to
CRM tactics. Because social causes exist outside of the CRM context, membership in one
of these groups needs to be deﬁned through the behaviors and tendencies of consumers
outside the CRM context. In essence, it is necessary to determine which consumers
identify with the people affected by a social cause and which consumers identify with a

speciﬁc cause regardless of exposure of a CRM tactic. When taken out of the CRM

63

context, these tendencies or behaviors can be considered characteristics of the consumers.
As characteristics of the consumer, the identiﬁcation with a cause or general sympathy
with the people affected by the cause can inﬂuence the relationship with the cause, which
in turn inﬂuences the congruence of the ﬁt between consumers and the cause-brand
alliance. Elaborations about cause-brand alliances are less likely to be activated if the
causes in the alliances are considered congruent ﬁts by the consumers. A congruent ﬁt
could be a result of either identiﬁcation with the speciﬁc cause or with the people
affected by the social cause. This congruence between the consumer and the alliance
would limit elaborations and corporate attributions and increase the likelihood of
acceptance of the alliance.

H7: Identiﬁcation with people affected by the cause and identiﬁcation with the
cause will inﬂuence elaboration and attributions of corporate motive.

H7a: Consumers who identify with the people affected by the cause will
be more likely to make attributions of other-centric motives than consumers who
do not identify with the people affected by the cause.

H7b: Consumers who identify with the cause will be more likely to
make attributions of other-centric motives than consumers who do not identify
with the cause.

H7c: Consumers who do not identify with the people affected by the
cause will be more likely to make attributions of corporate-centric motives than

consumers who identify with the people affected the cause.

H7d: Consumers who do not identify with the cause will be more likely
to make attributions of corporate-centric motives than consumers who identify
with the cause.

One ﬁnal personal characteristic, gender, has been shown to inﬂuence consumer
acceptance of a CRM campaign (Ross, Patterson and Stutts 1992, Trimble and Rifon
2006). Typically, women exhibit more pro-social behavior than men (Eagly and Crowley
1986), and some researchers believe that this tendency translates into more acceptance of
pro-social corporate behavior by women (Ross, Patterson and Stutts 1992). However, in a
recent study, women’s responses showed a sensitivity to social alliances that suggests
women are not accepting of alliances without discrimination (Trimble and Rifon 2006).
When women did not perceive an alliance to be a congruent ﬁt, their evaluations of the
alliance were more negative than the evaluations of men who did not perceive a good ﬁt
for an alliance. Therefore, a possibility of backlash exists. Additionally, the tendency
toward more pro-social behavior suggests that women are better able to identify with
others than men are (Eagly and Crowley 1986). This ﬁnding suggests that gender might
be a moderating factor for the effect of the other personal characteristics of identifying
with a group and attending to a speciﬁc cause. If gender acts as a moderator, an
interaction between the effects of gender and the effects of the other personal
characteristics can be expected.

H8: Gender will moderate the effects of the relationship with the cause and

inﬂuence elaboration and attributions of corporate motive.

65

H8a: Women who identify with the people affected the cause will be
more likely to make attributions of other-centric motives on behalf of the
corporation than men who identify with the people affected the cause.

H8b: Women who identify with the cause will be more likely to make
attributions of other-centric motives on behalf of the corporation than men
who identify with the cause.

H8c: Women who do not identify with the people affected by the cause
will be more likely to make attributions of corporate-centric motives than men
who do not identify with the people affected by the cause.

H8d: Women who do not identify with the cause will be more likely
to make attributions of corporate-centric motives than men who do not identify

with the cause.

66

Figure 2.2
Model of Consumer Response to Cause-Brand Alliances as Examined in This Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
     
    

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nature of Congruence
the CBA

Expectations

of Corporate

Support
i
Cognitive , _ Attitude
Elaborations Attnggtlon Auveiazlf Perceptions Toward
°°°P °° Co rate _. the
Corporate of CB A “" rp.o. . -
Perceptions of
Nature of Identiﬁcation with Social
Consumer the social cause Signiﬁcance
Identiﬁcation with
Gender those affected by the
social cause

 

 

 

 

 

 

67

Frgure 2.3
Cobb and Elder (1972) Issue Publics

  
   

1)“th Attention

Groups

Attentive

Publrc Identiﬁcation

68

CHAPTER THREE

METHOD

Design Overview

A 2 x 2 (congruence between the brand and the cause x perceived prevalence of
the social cause) ﬁxed factor, experimental design was used to test the hypotheses. The
selection of a donor and causes was driven by internal and external validity
considerations. To test the effects of cause prevalence, real causes had to be used for the
creation of the low and high prevalence conditions stimulus materials. A ﬁctitious donor
corporation was created to minimize effects of attitudes toward existing corporations and
knowledge of their CRM activities. Based on the CRM landscape at the time of data
collection, a ﬁctitious water bottling company was created in the hopes that it would
generate a range of congruence perceptions across a variety of causes. To create
appropriate stimulus materials, pretests were conducted to assess consumer perceptions

of cause prevalence and congruence with the ﬁctitious company.

Table 3.1
Sample sizes

Study description Sample Size

 

 

Pretest 1 38
Pretest 2 25
Pretest 3 39
Final Study 255

 

69

Cause Selection
The main experimental hypothesis test was preceded by three pretests used to

select the social causes and create the study conditions.

Pretest 1 Participants.

Participants were recruited from three Midwestern colleges, including two large,
public four-year universities and one small liberal arts four-year university. A total of 38
students participated in the ﬁrst pro-test study used to develop the stimulus materials.
Participants were recruited from advertising, marketing and communication courses.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 30 with a mean age of 21 . The racial make-up of

the sample was predominantly white with 88% of the sample population.

Pretest 1 Procedure.

A questionnaire was designed to measure participants’ perceptions of the
prevalence of 20 different social causes used in cause-brand alliances and to measure
participants’ perceptions of the congruence of the cause-brand alliances created between
the 20 different causes and a ﬁctitious water bottling company. See Table 3.2 for a list of
social causes tested. Perceptions of prevalence were measured with a four-item, seven-
point semantic differential scale anchored by charity leader/not a charity leader,
popular/unpopular, widely accepted/not widely accepted, and many like it/few like it.
This scale was based on the brand popularity scale created by Mishra, Umesh and Stem
(1993). Perception of congruence of the cause-brand alliances was measured with a six-

item, seven point semantic differential scale that included the items from the Aaker and

70

Keller (1990) scale for ﬁt. The three Aaker and Keller items include the adjective pairs
good ﬁt/bad ﬁt, logical/illogical, appropriate/inappropriate. Three other adjective pairs,
anchored by complementary/not complementary, consistent/inconsistent, and makes
sense/doesn’t make sense were included. Additionally, basic demographic information on
sex, race and education level was collected for comparison purposes as past research on
cause-brand alliances has found the men and women report differing responses to CBAS
(Ross, Stutts and Patterson 1990; Ross, Patterson and Stutts 1992; Berger, Cunningham
and Kozinets 1999; Trimble and Rifon 2006). See Appendix A for a complete version of
the ﬁrst pretest questionnaire.

Participants’ responses indicated that breast cancer research (M = 2.48, SD =
1.11) and hurricane disaster relief (M = 2.61, SD = 1.00) were the most prevalent causes
while water conservation (M= 3.69, SD = 1.00) and public broadcasting (M = 4.08, SD =
1.24) were two of the least prevalent causes. However, the Cronbach’s alpha for the scale
ranged from .52 to .69, and the poor reliability of the scale made the results questionable.
(See Table 3.3 for a selection of scale means and reliability alphas.) Additionally,
participants rated hurricane disaster relief (M = 3.13, SD =1.13) and water conservation
(M = 3.28, SD = 1.31) as more congruent than the other social causes while AIDS
research (M = 5.05, SD = 1.06) and public broadcasting (M = 5.20, SD = 1.07) were rated
as less congruent. Similarly to the prevalence scale, the congruence scale was not
reliable. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale ranged from .56 to .74, so that the results were

considered unusable. (See Table 3.4 for a selection of scale means and reliability alphas.)

71

Table 3.2
Social causes tested in Pretests l and 2 (in alphabetical order)
Social Causes

 

 

AIDS research

breast cancer research
environmental sustainability
ethical treatment of animals
feeding the hungry

ﬁeedom of speech

gender equality

housing the homeless
hurricane disaster relief
immigration rights

literacy education

political reform

preserving national forests
privacy

public broadcasting

racial equality

religious freedom

tsunami relief

water conservation

wildlife conservation

 

72

Table 3.3.
Pretest 1 selection of prevalence scale means and reliabilityalphas

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cause Mean SD. Alpha
breast cancer research 2.48 1.1 1 .64
hurricane disaster relief 2.61 1.00 .56
AIDS research 2.93 1.14 .61
water conservation 3.69 1.00 .74
public broadcasting 4.08 1.24 .73
Table 3.4
Pretest 1 selection of congruence scale means and reliability alphas
Cause Mean SD. Alpha
water conservation 3.13 1.13 .69
hurricane disaster relief 3.29 1.31 .74
breast cancer research 4.87 1.16 .60
AIDS research 5.05 1.06 .70
public broadcasting 5.20 1.07 .52
Pretest 2 Participants.

Participants were recruited ﬁ'om two large, public four-year Midwestern
universities. A total of 25 students participated in the second pro-test study used to
develop the stimulus materials. Participants were recruited from advertising, marketing

and communication courses. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 27 with a mean age of
21.6. The racial make-up of the sample was predominantly white (70% of the

population).

73

Pretest 2 Procedure.

A second survey was designed to measure participants’ perceptions of the
prevalence of 20 different social causes used in cause-brand alliances and to measure
participants’ perceptions of the congruence of the cause-brand alliances created between
the 20 different causes and a ﬁctitious water bottling company. (See Table 3.2 for a list of
social causes tested.) To overcome the poor reliability measures from the ﬁrst pretest, the
instructional language in the second iteration of the survey was changed to improve the
clarity of the measures. One clariﬁcation was to demonstrate that the survey was intended
to measure the perception of the prevalence of the social cause as a partner in a cause-
brand alliance instead of measuring how popular the social causes were with individual
participants. The new language included the following statements.

Some businesses provide support to social causes through
donations, sponsorships and other alliances. For the following list of social
causes, please mark the circle that best indicates your opinion about how
much support these causes receive from businesses. Consider your
personal experiences having seen or not seen ads, news reports, or other
communications about how wide or substantial the support each cause
receives.

Additionally, the following instructions were added to the measure of congruence:

Some businesses support social causes with donations generated by
consumer purchases. The next set of statements are meant to measure your
beliefs about the nature of the relationship between a water bottling
company and the social causes it might support with donations generated
by consumer purchases. Please click on the circle closest to the word or
phrase which best reﬂects your feelings.

Still in attempt to overcome the poor reliability measures from the ﬁrst pretest, the
prevalence scale was altered to change the positively-valenced anchors (charity leader,

widely accepted, many like it and popular) from the previous semantic differentials into

74

Likert-style statements. For example, one statement was “The social cause is widely
accepted by the business community.” Four additional statements were added to the scale
to help identify the prevalence of the social causes in cause-brand alliance. These
statements focused on the visibility, strength and ﬁequency of business support for the
social causes as wells as the participants’ ability to recall business support for the social
causes. (See Appendix B for a complete questionnaire for the second pretest.) For all
eight items, respondents were asked if they strongly agreed, agreed, neither agreed or
disagreed, disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statements. Finally, the measure of
congruence was changed in an attempt to gauge better the participants’ beliefs on the
functional congruence of the 20 alliances. Thinking that the scale used in Pretest 1 may
have been too generic, four new Likert-style statements were written that focused on the
relationship between the social cause and the brand in terms of core competencies and
functional ﬁt. The four statements were: the business expertise of the donor is as
important to the social cause as its monetary contributions, there is a direct relationship
between the expertise of the donor and the problems of the social cause, if the donation
were made up of the donor’s products instead of ﬁnancial contributions, the donation
would still be important to the social cause and the products of the donor help ﬁx the
problems of the social cause. As with the other Likert-style statements in this survey, the
items were measured as ﬁve-point items anchored by strongly agree and strongly
disagree. The second pretest survey also included the same demographic measures as the
ﬁrst survey.

Once again, breast cancer research (M = 1.85, SD = .77) and hurricane disaster

relief (M = 1.98, SD = .73) were rated as more prevalent than other social causes except

75

for tsunami relief (M = 1.86, SD = .86) which was rated as highly as both breast cancer
research and hurricane disaster relief. Water conservation (M= 3.15, SD = .88) and
immigration rights (M = 3.23, SD = .86) were rated as two of the least prevalent causes.
Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was improved with a range ﬁ'om .88 to .92. (See Table 3.5
for a selection of scale means and reliability alphas.) After ﬁnding acceptable reliabilities
scores for the scale, the prevalence responses were tested for mean differences between
women and men. No statistically signiﬁcantly differences were found for any of the

social causes. (See Table 3.6 for a complete list of mean comparisons and p values.)

 

 

Table 3.5
Pretest 2 selection of prevalence scale means and reliability alphas
Cause Mean SD. Alpha
breast cancer research 1.85 .77 .91
tsunami relief 1.86 .73 .91
hurricane disaster relief 1.98 .86 .92
water conservation 3.15 .88 .90
immigration rights 3.23 .86 .88

 

It is important to note that the changes in the prevalence scale include a shift from
a seven-point scale to a ﬁve-point scale. Therefore, without a standardization of the scale
measures, direct comparisons between the ﬁrst measure and the second measure is
difficult. Another note of importance is that the social causes rated the lowest on the
prevalence scale were closer to the midpoint than a true negative valence. Therefore, the

ﬁndings were still not satisfactory and another iteration of the pretest was necessary.

76

Table 3.6

Pretest 2 t-values and p values for prevalence

(ordered by prevalence scale means, most prevalent to least prevalent)

 

 

Social Cause t value p value
Breast cancer .179 .860
Tsunami relief .154 .879
Hurricane disaster relief .246 .808
AIDS research -.l62 .873
Literacy education .449 .657
Public broadcasting 1.480 .152
Freedom of speech 1.480 .154
Gender equality .274 .787
Racial equality .844 .408
Feeding the hungry -1.285 .212
Privacy .404 .690
Ethical treatment of animals .943 .356
Wildlife conservation -.308 .761
Environmental sustainability .106 .917
International peace -.967 .344
Political reform 1.199 .243
Housing the homeless -1.545 .137
Religious ﬁ'eedom -.369 .715
Preserving national forests -.329 .745
Water conservation -.973 .341
Immigration rights .121 .905

 

On the congruence scale, participants rated tsunami relief (M = 2.35, SD = .69),
water conservation (M = 2.37, SD = .81), and hurricane disaster relief (M = 2.41, SD
=.64) as more congruent than the other social causes while immigration rights (M = 3.04,
SD = .73) and public broadcasting (M = 3.09, SD = .71) were rated as less congruent.
Similar to the ﬁrst attempt, the congruence scale was not reliable. Cronbach’s alpha for
the scale ranged ﬁ'om .47 to .77, so that the results were considered unusable. (See Table

3.7 for a selection of scale means and reliability alphas.)

77

Table 3.7
Pretest 2 selection of congruence scale means and reliability alphas

 

 

 

Cause Mean SD. Alpha

tsunami relief 2.35 .69 .62

water conservation 2.37 .81 .77

hurricane disaster relief 2.41 .64 .47

immigration rights 3.04 .73 .68

religious freedom 3.09 .71 .75
Pretest 3 Participants.

Participants were recruited from two large, public four-year Midwestern colleges.
A total of 38 students participated in the third pre-test study used to develop the stimulus
materials. Participants were recruited from advertising, marketing and communication
courses. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 26 with a mean age of21.8. The racial

make-up of the sample was predominantly white (79% of the sample population).

Pretest 3 Procedure.

Because the ﬁndings of the second pretest were problematic, a third version of the
pretest survey was created in an attempt to overcome the ﬂaws in the second survey.
First, the list of social causes was changed to address the fact that the prevalence scores
of the lowest rated social causes were not substantially low. The intent was to add social
causes to the survey that were not associated with any known cause-brand alliances. It
was important that the added social causes not be controversial in nature because the
negative attitudes generated by the controversy could confound the survey ﬁndings.
Therefore, it was important to select social causes that were seemingly unfamiliar and

innocuous. The social causes of animal highway crossings‘, international waterway

78

rights, and social equality in cartographf were added. See Table 3.8 for a full list of

social causes included in the third pretest.

‘—The name of the social cause, animal highway crossings, was borrowed from an episode of The West
Wing entitled “The Crackpots and These Women” that was written by Aaron Sorkin.

z—-T‘he name of the social cause, social equality in cartography, was borrowed from an episode of The
West Wing entitled “Somebody’s Going to Emergency, Somebody’s Going to Jail” that was written by Paul
Redford and Aaron Sorkin.

79

Table 3.8
Social causes tested in Pretest 3 (in alphabetical order)
Social Causes

AIDS research

animal highway crossings

breast cancer research

 

 

environmental sustainability
ethical treatment of animals
feeding the hungry

ﬁ'eedom of speech

gender equality

housing the homeless
hurricane disaster relief
immigration rights
international waterway rights
literacy education

political reform

preserving national forests
privacy

public broadcasting

racial equality

religious ﬁ'eedom

social equality in cartography
tsunami relief

water conservation

wildlife conservation

 

 

 

8O

Prevalence of the social cause was measured using the same items from the
second pretest survey, but the congruence measures were again changed in order to
overcome the low reliability scores found in the ﬁrst two pretests. For the third version of
the pretest survey, congruence was again measured using ﬁve-point Likert-style
statements anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree. Again, the survey included
the instructional language of the second version of the survey. This time the statements
included: the company and the social cause are a good ﬁt; for the company, the actions of
bottling water and supporting the social cause are consistent; the water bottling company
and the social cause are congruent with each other; a relationship between the company
and the social cause is a good match; an alliance between the water bottling company and
the social cause is logical; and a relationship between the water bottling company and the
social cause makes sense. See Appendix C for a complete questionnaire for the third
pretest.

For this iteration of the pretest survey, respondents again rated hurricane disaster
relief (M = 2.01, SD = .87), tsunami relief (M = 2.03, SD = .84), and breast cancer
research (M = 2.09, SD = .89) as the most prevalent social causes. The addition of the
new social causes to the survey did result in a bigger disparity between those rated as
highly prevalent and those rated more lowly. International waterway rights (M = 3.45, SD
= .97) and animal highway crossings (M = 3.74, SD = .80) were rated the lowest of all 23
social causes. As was found in the second survey, this scale had acceptable reliability
scores with a range of the Cronbach’s alpha ﬁ'om .92 to .96. See Table 3.9 for a selection

of means, standard deviations and alpha scores.

81

For the congruence scale, the third iteration of the scale seemed to correct the
ﬂaws of the ﬁrst two attempts. Water conservation (M = 1.91, SD = .98), hurricane
disaster relief (M = 2.07, SD = .88), and tsunami relief (M = 2.09, SD = .88) were rated
the social causes most congruent with the ﬁctitious water bottling company. Political
reform (M = 3.60, SD = 1.00) and religious ﬁ'eedom (M = 3.65, SD = 1.01) were rated as
the social causes least congruency with a water bottling company. As hoped, the
congruence scale was suitably reliable with a range of the Cronbach’s alpha scores from
.91 to .96. See Table 3.10 for a selection of means, standard deviations and alpha scores

for the social causes tested.

 

 

Table 3.9.

Pretest 3 selection of prevalence scale means and reliability alphas
Cause Mean S.D. Alpha
hurricane disaster relief 2.01 .87 .94
tsunami relief 2.03 .84 .94
breast cancer research 2.09 .89 .94
social equality in cartography 3.19 .87 .96
water conservation 3.22 .93 .92
international waterway rights 3.45 .97 .95
animal highway crossings 3.74 .80 .92

 

82

Table 3.10.
Pretest 3 selection of congruence scale means and reliability alphas

 

 

Cause Mean S.D. Alpha
water conservation 1.91 .98 .91
hurricane disaster relief 2.07 .88 .92
tsunami relief 2.09 .88 .91
breast cancer research 3.11 1.09 .93
social equality in cartography 3.34 .97 .95
political reform 3.60 1.00 .95
religious freedom 3.65 1.09 .96

 

With data ﬁ'om reliable scales, it was possible to select four social causes to
represent the four conditions of high prevalence and high congruence, low prevalence
with high congruence, high prevalence and low congruence, and low prevalence and low
congruence. To eliminate possible confounds, it was important that no statistically
signiﬁcant difference be found between similarly labeled social causes. For example, the
prevalence ratings for the two social causes chosen to represent the highly prevalent
conditions should not be statistically signiﬁcantly different in their prevalence ratings.
Likewise, it was important that a statistically signiﬁcant difference was found for social
causes labeled in opposition. For example, the congruence rating for the social cause
chosen to represent the highly congruent condition needed to be statistically signiﬁcantly
higher than the congruence rating of the social cause chosen to represent the low
congruent condition. Therefore, the conditions were developed not by simply taking the
social causes with the highest and lowest ratings, but by testing for signiﬁcant differences
and a lack of signiﬁcant difference where it was expected. This process produced the
following four conditions. Hurricane disaster relief was the social cause labeled as highly

prevalent and highly congruent with the alliance partner while water conservation was the

83

social cause labeled as a highly congruent with the alliance partner but with low
prevalence. Breast cancer research was the social cause labeled as highly prevalent with
low congruence with the alliance partner, and social equality in cartography was chosen
for the ﬁnal condition of low prevalence and low congruence. See Table 3.11 for

condition assignments and Table 3.12 for means.

 

 

 

 

Table 3.11
Assigned conditions
Prevalence
High Low
High hurricane disaster relief water conservation
Congruence
Low breast cancer research social equality in cartography
Table 3.12
Variable means for chosen conditions (SD iuarentheses)
Social Cause Congruence Prevalence
water conservation 1.91 (.98) 3.22 (.97)
hurricane disaster relief 2.07 (.87) 2.01 (.87)
breast cancer research 3.11 (1.09) 2.09 (.89)

social equality in cartography 3331.97) 3.19 (.87)

 

Experimental Design and Data Collection Procedure
Main Study Participants.

Participants were recruited from three Midwestern colleges, including two large,
public four-year universities and one small liberal arts four-year university. A total of 248
students participated in the ﬁnal study. Participants were recruited ﬁ'om advertising,
marketing and communication courses. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 32 with a
mean age of 20.55. The racial make-up of the sample was 11% Asian, 3.5% black, 2.4%

Latino, 78.8% white and 2.7% indicating a multi-racial background. All participants had

84

earned a high school diploma including 327 undergraduate students and 30 graduate
students. Women were better represented than men with 263 female participants or

73.7% of the sample compared to the 94 male participants or 26.3% of the sample.

Main Study Procedure
Once the social causes were assigned to conditions, the stimulus materials were
created. Using the ﬁctitious company, Enrichment Bottling, and the commonly purchased
consumer item, bottled water, press releases were created that promoted a ﬁctitious
cause-brand alliance between the assigned social cause and Enrichment Bottling. The
press release copy was as follows:
Help is on the way for those in need of the cause, according to
ofﬁcials from Enrichment Bottling. Enrichment Bottling is introducing a
new campaign to raise money for the cause. “We can help. So we will,”
stated an Enrichment Bottling spokesperson. “There’s a way for us help
someone else while we go about the every day business of our business.”
Enrichment Bottling will donate a portion of its proﬁts from the
sales of the bottled water purchased during the month of June to the cause.
In-store displays will carry the information about the donations, and
Enrichment Bottling will soon have information about the donations on its

Web site. The Enrichment spokesperson said that the Web site will include
information for individuals wanting to make their own donations.

With the assignment of conditions and the creation of the stimulus materials, a 2 x
2 (congruence between the brand and the cause and perceived prevalence of the social
cause) experimental design was used to measure consumer response to alliance while
addressing the inﬂuence of the expectations of corporate support, the consumer

relationship with the cause and the consumer relationship with the corporation.

85

The experiment was conducted online. Participants were recruited by e-mail with
the assistance of course instructors. Once instructors offered their cooperation, they sent
out an e-mail to their students providing the students with a general description of the
study, information about the beneﬁts of participants (Most instructors offered extra credit
or research credit for participants and all study participants were entered into a drawing
for one of ﬁve $20 gift cards to a national chain of gas stations), and information about
how to contact the researchers to complete the study. Interested students then sent an e-
mail to the researcher and received a second e-mail with a link to a URL for their
assigned conditions. Assignments to conditions were made systematically in order of
response.

Once the interested students clicked on the link to the URL, they were taken to the
informed consent form that further explained the purpose of the study, the time
constraints of the study and the contact information for the researcher and the chair of the
Internal Review board. Any students who voluntarily consented to participate were then
taken to the ﬁrst page of the ﬁnal study questionnaire. The ﬁnal study questionnaire was
composed of three parts. The ﬁrst part included pre-exposure measures, the second part
included the stimulus material press release, and the ﬁnal part included post-exposure
measures, measures of basic demographics, and contact information necessary for
notifying the winners of the drawing. See Appendices D-G for a complete questionnaire
for each condition.

The pre-exposure measures included six measures related to the social causes. In
order to avoid priming the participants, all pre-exposure data was gathered for all four

social causes. These measures included: attitude toward the social causes, familiarity with

86

the social causes, perceived social signiﬁcance of the social causes, perception of
prevalence of the social cause, identiﬁcation with those affected by the chosen social
causes, and identiﬁcation with the social cause.

Attitude toward the cause (alpha = .87) was measured on a three-item, seven-
point, semantic differential scale anchored by the following adjective pairs: good/bad,
pleasant/unpleasant, and favorable/unfavorable (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989). Perception
of prevalence was measured using the same scale described in Pretest 3. Familiarity was
measured with a one-item, seven-point semantic differential anchored by
familiar/unfamiliar.

Identiﬁcation with those affected by the cause (alpha = .94) was measured by an
adaptation of the scale designed to measure perceptions of identity with an organization
(Bhattacharya, Rao and Glynn 1995). The adaptation of the scale for identiﬁcation with
those affected by the cause included the following six ﬁve-point Likert-type statements
anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree: when someone criticizes those aﬁ'ected
by the cause, it feels like a personal insult, I am very interested in what others think about
those aﬂected by the cause, when I talk about those aﬁ’ected by the cause, I usually say
we rather than they, the successes of those aﬁkcted by the cause are my successes, when
someone praises those aﬂected by the cause, it feels like a personal compliment, and if a
story in the media criticized those aﬂected by the cause, I would feel embarrassed.

Identiﬁcation with the cause (alpha = .89) was measured using a scale created by
Wann and Branscombe (1993) to measure identiﬁcation with a sports team. Again, six
ﬁve-point Likert-type items anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree were used.

The six items are: it is important to me is it that the cause achieves its goals, I see myself

87

as a supporter of the cause, my friends see me as a supporter of the cause, I closely
follow news of the cause via ANY of the following a) on the Internet, b) on television
news or a newspaper, or c) in person, being a supporter of the cause is important to me,
and I always display my support of the cause with words or logos at my place of work,
where I live, or on my clothing.

The scope of social signiﬁcance (alpha = .75) was measured by a three-item, ﬁve-
point Likert-type scale. The following three statements were included: the cause is
everyone’s problem, I believe that the cause affects too many people, and the impact of
the cause extends beyond the number of people directly affected.

The post-exposure measures included attitude toward Enrichment Bottling,
attitude toward the social cause, perceptions of corporate credibility, attributions of
corporate motive, congruence of the alliance partners, acceptance of the alliance, and
expectations of corporate support. Demographic data and contact information were also
gathered.

Post-exposure measures of attitude were similar to the pre-exposure measures.
Both attitude toward the cause (alpha = .88) and attitude toward Enrichment Bottling
(alpha = .89) were measured by the MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) three-item, seven-point
semantic differential scale. The three items are anchored by good/bad,
pleasant/unpleasant and favorable/unfavorable.

Perceptions of corporate credibility (alpha = .74) was measured with Newell and
Goldsmith’s (2001) eight-item corporate credibility scale. The eight-item scale has two
subscales, expertise and trustworthiness. The expertise subscale consists of the following

four ﬁve-point Likert-style statements: the corporation has a great amount of experience,

88

the corporation is skilled in what they do, the corporation has great expertise, the
corporation does not have much experience. The trustworthiness subscale consists of the
following four ﬁve-point Likert-style statements: I trust the corporation, the corporation
makes truthful claims, the corporation is honest and I do not believe what the
corporation tells me.

The post-exposure measure of congruence (alpha = .96) mirrored that used in the
third pretest. The scale consisted of six, ﬁve-point Likert-type items anchored by strongly
agree and strongly disagree.

Attribution of corporate motive was measured by seventeen, ﬁve-point Likert-
type items anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree. The items were statements
of possible motives for Enrichment Bottling’s involvement in a cause-brand alliance.
(Items 1-8 were taken from Rifon et al. 2004 while the remaining items were created for
this study.) The motives included claims of altruism, claims of proﬁt-orientation, claims
of competitiveness, and claims of governmental inﬂuence. See Table 3.13 for full list of

items.

89

Table 3.13
Items for attribution of corporate motive

 

Statements

 

 

1. Enrichment Bottling uses cause-related marketing because ultimately they care about their
customers.

2. Enrichment Bottling does not have a genuine concern for the welfare of their customers.

3. Enrichment Bottling really cares about getting information about the cause to their customers.
4. Enrichment Bottling uses cause-related marketing because it will increase proﬁts.

5. Enrichment Bottling uses cause-related marketing to persuade me to buy their products.

6. Enrichment Bottling uses cause-related marketing because it creates a positive corporate
image.

7. Enrichment Bottling beneﬁts by using a cause-related marketing campaign for the cause.

8. Enrichment Bottling uses cause-related marketing because it is the morally “right” thing to do.
9. Enrichment Bottling uses cause-related marketing to lobby.

10. Enrichment Bottling uses cause-related marketing because customers like it.

11. Cause-related marketing is the popular thing to do, and that’s why Enrichment Bottling is
doing it.

12. Enrichment Bottling likes to give back to the community.

13. Cause-related marketing helps Enrichment Bottling compete with other companies who
donate to worthy causes.

14. Cause-related marketing earns Enrichment Bottling free press, and that why Enrichment
Bottling does it.

15. Enrichment Bottling believes it doesn’t need to lower prices when it uses cause-related
marketing.

16. Enrichment Bottling donates to the cause because other companies donate to similar causes.

17. Enrichment Bottling is legally required to donate to worthy causes.

 

90

 

Acceptance of the CBA alliance (alpha = .89) was measured using the following
items in ﬁve-point, Likert-type statements: I agree with the alliance between the cause
and Enrichment Bottling, the alliance between the cause and Enrichment Bottling is a bad
idea, I don’t have any problem with the alliance between the cause and Enrichment
Bottling, more companies should do something like the alliance between the cause and
Enrichment Bottling. I reject the alliance between the cause and Enrichment Bottling, and I

approve of the alliance between the cause and Enrichment Bottling.

The items for expectation of corporate support (alpha = .68) was intended to
compare the observed corporate behavior to consumer expectations of corporate
behavior. This was measured by three items in a ﬁve-point, Likert-type scale. The three
statements were: I am not surprised that Enrichment Bottling is making a donation to the
cause, I expected a company liket Enrichment Bottling to support the social cause, and I
could have predicted that Enrichment Bottling would offer help to the social cause.

Finally, the basic demographic data of sex, race and education level were collected.

91

Table 3.14

 

 

 

Listing of measures and Cronbach’s alpha
Characteristics of the Characteristics of the Target
Cause-Brand Alliance Alpha Audience Alpha
Perceptions of Relationship with the cause
congruence of the CBA .96 including:
Identiﬁcation with the cause .90
Perceptions of the Perceptions of social signiﬁcance
prevalence of the cause .89 of the cause .7 5
Pre-exposure attitude toward .87
Expectations of cause
corporate support .68
Relationship with the company
including:
Attitude toward the corporation .89
Perceptions of corporate
credibility .74
Other-centric motives .74
Corporate-centric motives .87
Acceptance of the cause-brand
alliance .89

 

 

 

 

92

 

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS

Statistical Analyses

The hypotheses were tested using analysis of covariance techniques and
regression analysis. A 2 x 2 (prevalence x congruence) AN COVA was performed to
examine possible effects of the nature of the alliance with cause familiarity, expectations
of corporate support, identiﬁcation with the cause, perception of social signiﬁcance and
pre-exposure attitude toward the cause as covariates. Type IH sums of squares
computation as suggested in “Analysis of Variance” (2001) were used to accommodate

the unequal cell sizes.

Manipulation Check

Manipulation checks were performed before hypothesis testing. The perceptions
of congruence were expected to follow the same pattern found in the third pretest such
that hurricane disaster relief and water conservation were expected to be rated as more
congruent than breast cancer research and social equality in cartography. No differences
in measure of congruence were expected to be found between hurricane disaster relief
and water conservation or between breast cancer research and social equality in
cartography. For perceptions of prevalence, hurricane disaster relief and breast cancer
research were expected to be rated as more prevalent than water conservation and social
equality in cartography. No differences in measure of prevalence were expected to be
found between hurricane disaster relief and breast cancer research or between water

conservation and social equality in cartography.

93

Perceptions of congruence were signiﬁcantly different across conditions (F ( 1 ,243) =
17.72, p < .01). The hurricane disaster relief (M = 2.12) and water conservation (M =
2.29) conditions were rated as more congruent than breast cancer research (M = 2.67) and
social equality in cartography (M = 3.01). A planned comparison found that the
difference in means of hurricane disaster relief and water conservation was not
significantly statistically different (p > .05). However, a statistically signiﬁcant difference
between the means of the two low congruence conditions was found (p < .01).

For the perceptions of prevalence, the means were different across conditions
(F0345) = 84.01, p < .01). Hunicane disaster relief (M = 1.96) and breast cancer research
(M = 1.81) were rated as more prevalent than water conservation (M = 3 .09) and social
equality in cartography (M = 3.42). As expected, the comparison of main effects
demonstrated that the different scale means for the two high prevalence conditions were
not signiﬁcantly statistically different (p > .05). However, like the comparison of main
effects for congruence, signiﬁcant differences were found for the prevalence scale means
for the two social causes assigned to the low conditions (p < .01). Again, this was not

expected.

Attribution of Motive

Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation of the seventeen
corporate motive items identiﬁed which items reﬂected attributions of corporate proﬁt
motive, or the corporate-centric motives, and which items reﬂected attributions of
socially responsible motives, or other-centric motives. (Please note that the statement

“Enrichment Bottling uses cause-related marketing because customers like it” was

94

considered a corporate-centric motive because satisfying customers is the means to the
end of a proﬁtable business. The items that loaded on the other-centric factor could
cynically be considered a means to an end. The route from those motives to a proﬁtable
business is less obvious and direct than that between happy customers and a healthy

bottom line.) The solution accounted for 43% of the total variance. See Table 4.1 for the

complete listing of items in the two-factor solution.

 

 

 

Table 4.1
Attribution factor analysis results
Factor Loading
Factor 1 Factor 2
Corporate-
centric Other-centric
motives motives
positive public image (6) .767 -.030
company beneﬁts (7) .747 .076
persuade me to buy (5) .740 -.093
compete with others (13) .703 .240
customers like it (10) .683 .150
increase proﬁts(4) .680 -.031
popular thing to do (11) .679 .128
others are doing it (16) .665 .201
freepress (14) .615 .013
no need to lower prices (15) .504 .163
cares about sharing cause information (3) -.004 .811
cares about customers (1) .090 .756
give back to community (12) .162 .716
_right thing to do (8) .236 .602

 

Once the items for the two factors were identiﬁed, two scales were created to
measure the participants’ responses to the corporate-centric motives and the other-centric
motives. A regression analysis was then performed on the two motive scale means to test
for relationship between the attribution of motives and participants’ acceptance of the
cause-brand alliance. As predicted in hypothesis 1b, a change in attribution of other-

centric motives lead to a change in acceptance of the alliance ([3 = .263, t (249) = 4.35, p <

95

.01). Stronger attributions of the other-centric motives were signiﬁcantly related to
stronger acceptance of the cause-brand alliance. Hypothesis 1a predicted that stronger
attributions of corporate-centric motives were expected to lead to less acceptance of the
cause-brand alliance. Regression analysis showed that a relationship between corporate-
centric motive attributions and acceptance of the alliance were signiﬁcantly related, but
not in the direction expected. As with the attributions of other-centric motives, stronger
attributions of corporate-centric motives lead to stronger acceptance of the cause-brand
alliance ([3 = .243, t (249) = 4.02 p < .01). These results provide support for hypothesis 1,

but the support is incomplete because the predicted pattern did not emerge.

Effects of Congruence and Prevalence

Study conditions were created to measures participants’ responses to different
levels of congruence of a CBA and different levels of prevalence of the social cause in a
CBA. Stronger perceptions of congruence and prevalence were expected to affect
participants’ attributions of corporate motive which, in turn, would affect consumer
acceptance of the alliance. Attribution of corporate motive and acceptance of the cause-
brand alliance where predicted to be the beginning of the cognitive process that affects
consumer perceptions of corporate credibility and consumer attitudes toward the
corporate alliance partner.

A ﬁrst look at the 2 x 2 (congruence x prevalence) AN OVA suggests that the
characteristics of the cause-brand alliance does affect consumer attributions of motive
and consumer acceptance of the alliance. (See Table 4.2 for list of F and p values for the

AN OVA.) Participants who were exposed to the highly prevalent social causes of breast

96

cancer research and hurricane disaster relief reported stronger attributions of other-centric
motives (M = 2.52, SE = .05) than participants who were exposed to the less prevalence
social causes of water conservation and social equality in cartography (M = 2.75, SE =
.05, F (1, 254) = 10.36, p < .01). (Please note that lower values indicate a positive valence
or agreement with a statement. Therefore, a lower mean in an attribution of motive scale
indicates stronger agreement.) Additionally, participants who were exposed to the more
congruent alliance involving hurricane disaster relief and water conservation reported
stronger attributions of other-centric motives (M = 2.53, SE = .05) than participants who
read about the less congruent alliances involving breast cancer research and social
equality in cartography (M = 2.74, SE = .05, F (1, 254) = 8.36, p < .01). There was no
signiﬁcant interaction. This ﬁnding provides partial support for hypothesis 4.

Additionally, the characteristics of the cause-brand alliance appear to affect the
participants’ acceptance of the alliance. Participants’ who read the press release about a
CBA involving a prevalent cause were more likely to accept the alliance (M = 2.17, SE =
.05) than participants who read about an alliance with a less prevalent cause (M = 2.51,
SE = .05, F (1,251) = 21.15, p < .01). No main effect for congruence was found, but an
interaction effect between prevalence and congruence was found for acceptance of the
alliance (F (1, 251) = 11.05, p< .01). (See Table 4.3 for acceptance of the alliance scale
means by condition.)

The ﬁndings of this initial exploratory analysis are interesting, but they fail to
incorporate the individual differences among participants that were previously discussed.
Therefore, an additional analysis of covariance was performed to explore any differences

by condition after controlling for identiﬁcation with the social cause (M = 2.93),

97

perceptions of social signiﬁcance (M = 2.48), familiarity with the cause (M = 3.08),
expectations of corporate support (M = 2.65) and pre-exposure attitude toward the social
cause (M = 2.47). (See Table 4.2 for list of F and p values for the ANCOVA. As
familiarity with the social cause was not signiﬁcantly related to any of the tested
variables it is not listed on the table.) After including the covariates the effects of
prevalence and congruence discovered in the AN OVA largely dissipate. However, the
effect of prevalence on acceptance of the alliance is still signiﬁcant (F (1.234) = 4.64,
p<.05) after controlling for all the individual difference among participants. Participants
who read about a CBA involving a prevalent social cause reported stronger acceptance of
the alliance (M = 2.25, SE = .06) than participants who read about an alliance involving a
less prevalent social cause (M = 2.44, SE = .06). No signiﬁcant main effects or

interaction effects were found the remaining variables.

98

Table 4.2
ANOVA and ANCOVA results by condition

 

 

Dependent AN OVA AN COVA

Variable F p F p

Other-centric

motives Congruence‘ 8.36 .00 .01 .91
Prevalence' 10.36 .00 1.67 .20
C x P .05 .83 .16 .69
Identiﬁcationb 5.60 .02
Signiﬁcance 1.86 .17
Support expectationsb 22.85 .00
Pre-exposure attitude .02 .90

Corporate-

centric motives Congruence 2.21 .14 .20 .65
Prevalence 2.95 .09 .06 .81
C x P 2.00 .16 .01 .93
Identification .29 .59
Signiﬁcance 2.00 .16
Support expectations 2.50 .12
Pre-exposure attitude 1.66 .20

Acceptance of

the alliance Congruence 1.59 .21 1.78 .18
Prevalence“ 21.5 .00 4.64 .03
CxP' 11.05 .00 1.93 .17
Identiﬁcation .82 .37
Signiﬁcance 3.19 .08
Support expectations” 19.37 .00
Pre-exposure attitudeb 4.64 .03

Perceptions of

credibility Congruence 2. 65 .11 .10 .75
Prevalence .85 .36 .00 .98
C x P 1.55 .22 1.06 .31
Identiﬁcation .5 1 .48
Signiﬁcance 1 .62 .21
Familiarity .05 .82
Support expectationsb 5.74 .02
Pre-exposure attitude .24 .62

Attitude toward

the company Congruence 1.98 .17 .29 .59
Prevalence .26 .61 1 .41 .24
CxP .18 .67 2.68 .10
Identiﬁcation .40 .53
Signiﬁcanceb 3.79 .05
Support expectations 1.38 .24
Pre-exposure attitude” 20.2.00

 

ANCOVA covariates: Identiﬁcation— - identiﬁcation with the social cause, Signiﬁcance= perceptions of
social signiﬁcance, Support expectations= Expectations of corporate support, Pre-exposure attitude= pre-

exposure attitude toward the cause
a = signiﬁcant at the .05 level in the ANOVA
b = signiﬁcant at the .05 level in the ANCOVA

99

Table 4.3
Scale means for acceptance of the alliance by condition
(Standard Error in parentheses)
Prevalence

High Low

High 2.25 (.07) 2.34 (.07)

Congruence
Low 2.10 (.07) 2.67 (.07)

 

Attitude and Perceptions of Corporate Credibility

Participants’ acceptance of the cause-brand alliance was predicted as one step in
the model that led to perceptions of corporate credibility and consumer attitudes.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that stronger acceptance of the alliance would lead to more
positive perceptions of corporate credibility while hypothesis 3 predicted that more
positive perceptions of corporate credibility would lead to more positive attitudes toward
the company, Enrichment Bottling. Regression analysis on the data showed support for
both hypotheses. An increase in acceptance of the alliance was signiﬁcantly related to
more positive perceptions of corporate credibility (B = .367, t (249) = 6.21, p < .01).
Additionally, more positive perceptions of corporate credibility were related to more
positive attitudes toward the corporation ([3 = .337, t (249) = 5.58, p < .01). These ﬁnding

offer support for both hypothesis 2 and 3.

Characteristics of the Consumer

Three consumer characteristics were predicted to inﬂuence consumer attributions
of corporate motive. Those variables were identiﬁcation with the cause, identiﬁcation
with those affected by the social cause, and pre-exposure attitude toward the social cause.

Analysis of the two identiﬁcation variables found the two to be highly correlated. See

100

Table 4.4 for Pearson’s r and p values. To avoid confounds of collinearity and overstating
the effects of the variables, the two scales were collapsed. All subsequent analysis of
identiﬁcation with the cause includes the six items that were thought to measure
identiﬁcation with the cause as well as the six items that were throught to measure
identiﬁcation with those affected by the cause.

Hypothesis 5 predicted that identiﬁcation with social cause would inﬂuence
consumers’ expectations of corporate behavior. Following the assertion that “people
expect to agree with people they like and disagree with people they dislike” (Eagly and
Chaiken 1993, p. 141), the presence of a favorite social cause in an alliance was predicted
to lead to expectations of corporate support for the speciﬁc cause. Conversely, the
presence of a social cause not held in personal favor was predicted to be associated with
an absence of expectation of corporate support for the speciﬁc cause. Pre-exposure
measure of attitude toward the social cause was not a good predictor of expectations of
corporate support for the social cause as the two variables were not signiﬁcantly
correlated (r = .11, p > .05). However, the collapsed measure of identiﬁcation with the
social cause was a good predictor of expectations for corporate support for the social
cause. Speciﬁcally, the stronger the identiﬁcation with the social cause reported, the
higher the expectations of corporate support for the social cause reported ([3 = .227, t (249)
= 3.67, p < .01). Hypothesis 5 also predicted that expectation of corporate support would
relate to attributions of corporate motive. Regression analysis suggests that as
expectations of corporate support increase, so, too, increases attributions of both other-
centric motives (B = .412, t (253) = 7.17, p < .01) and corporate—centric motives ([3 = .1.78,

t (254) = 2.88, p < .01). However, expectation of corporate support is a better predictor of

101

attributions of other-centric motives (adjusted R 2 = .17) than corporate-centric motives
(adjusted R 2 = .03). This ﬁnding offers partial support for hypothesis 5.

Identiﬁcation with the cause was also predicted to inﬂuence attributions of
corporate motive. Hypothesis 7 stated that participants who identiﬁed with the social
cause would make more attributions of other-centric motives while participants who
lacked identiﬁcation with the social cause would make more attributions of corporate-
centric motives. As predicted, a relationship between identiﬁcation with the social cause
and attributions of corporate motive was found. First, the stronger the relationship
between the participant and the social cause claimed, the more attributions of other-
centric motives were made ([3 = .339, t (243) = 5.67, p < .01). However, the other half of
the pattern did not emerge as predicted. Participants who reported a strong relationship
with the cause still made attributions of corporate-centric motives ([3 = .196, t (250) = 3.15,
p < .01). The coefﬁcient of determination suggests that identiﬁcation with the cause is a
better predictor of other-centric motives (adjusted R 2 = .11) than of corporate-centric

motives (adjusted R 2 = .04). These ﬁndings provide partial support for hypothesis 7.

 

 

Table 4.4
Correlation of two identiﬁcation variables
Social Cause Pearson’s r p value
social equality in cartography .62 .01
hurricane disaster relief .61 .01
water conservation .57 .01
breast cancer research .57 .01

 

102

Perceptions of Social Signiﬁcance

As an inﬂuence on the connection with the cause, perceptions of social
signiﬁcance were predicted to inﬂuence attributions of corporate motive. Speciﬁcally,
hypothesis 6 predicted that stronger perceptions of social signiﬁcance would lead to
attributions of other-centric motives. Conversely, a lack of perceptions of social
signiﬁcance would lead to attributions of corporate-centric motives. As can be found with
the other relationships tested in this study, the hypothesis found partial support as the part
of the prediction proved true but the predicted pattern did not emerge. Strong perceptions
of social signiﬁcance were related to attributions other-centric motives (B = .322, t (249) =
5.36, p < .01), but those strong perceptions were also related to attributions of corporate-
centric motives (B = .232, t (250) = 3.76, p < .01). However, once again, the data suggests
that the independent variable is a better predictor of the attributions of other-centric
motives (adjusted R 2 = .10) than of the attributions of corporate-centric motives (adjusted

R 2 = .05).

Relationship with the Corporation

The assertions of research questions 1 and 2 were based on consumers’
relationship with a corporation that would exist prior to exposure to cause-brand alliance.
Because this study used a ﬁctitious corporation, the corporate relationship variables (pre-
exposure attitude toward the corporation and pre-exposure perceptions of corporate
credibility) were not measured as the participants could not have an existing relationship
with a corporation that does not exist. Therefore, the research questions could not be

tested.

103

Gender

The ﬁnal hypothesis predicted that gender would have a moderating effect on the
relationship with social cause. Initial t-tests were performed to check for differences in
variable means by gender. No statistically signiﬁcant differences were found. (See Table
4.5 for a complete listing of t-scores and p values for the tested variables.) Additionally,
the study sample is predominantly female; any ﬁndings of differences would be suspect.

Therefore, hypothesis 8 could not be tested.

 

 

Table 4.5
t-tests by gender
t p value
Post-exposure attitude toward the cause .036 .971
Post-exposure attitude toward the company 1.032 _3()3

Post-exposure perceptions of corporate credibility -.761 .447

Alliance congruence .101 .920
Acceptance of the alliance -. 399 .690
Expectations of corporate support .708 .430
Pre-exposure attitude condition speciﬁc _.777 .433
Cause prevalence condition speciﬁc .193 .347
Corporate-centric motives .732 .465
Other-centric motives .669 .504
Familiarity condition speciﬁc _1 .472 .142

 

104

Hierarchical Multiple Regression

While simple regression analysis is helpful in testing relationships between
variables, the previously described analyses were done in isolation, ignoring the effects of
the other variables. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to look at the
relationship of the variables in the broader picture. With attitude toward the corporation
as the dependent variable, identiﬁcation with the social cause was entered in the ﬁrst
block. For the second block, the remaining measures of individual differences among
participants were subjected to a step-wise regression to predict the inﬂuential consumer
characteristics. As is demonstrated in Table 4.6, only perceptions of alliance congruence
were a signiﬁcant predictor of consumer characteristics. The third block, which included
both other-centric and corporate-centric motives, was also subjected to a step-wise
regression. Both motive types were predictors of participant elaborations. Acceptance of
the alliance was input into the fourth block, and, ﬁnally, perceptions of corporate
credibility were input for the ﬁfth block.

The ﬁnal model explained 27.4% of the variance within the study. With the
effects of the variables partialled out, acceptance of the alliance explained the most
variance (9.6%). A signiﬁcant AF was found for all variables except identiﬁcation with
the cause. (See Table 4.6 for all B, ARZ, AF and R2 values.) The ﬁnal model demonstrated
that attributions of corporate motive, acceptance of the alliance and perceptions of

corporate credibility were good predictors of attitude toward the corporation.

105

Table 4.6
Models of hierarchical regression
for attitude toward the corporation as dependent variable

 

 

 

13
Predictor Model Model Model Model Model Model AF R2 AR2
variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
Modell 3.31 .01 .01
ID .12* .04 -.01 -.05 -.05 -.01
Modelz 12.12 .06 .05
Congruence .27" .22* .16" .01 .00
Model3 16.94 .13 .07
CCM .26" .23" .15" .11*
Mode14 6.49 .15 .02
OCM .18” .13* .07
Models 28.88 .25 .10
Acceptance .38" .34"
Model 6
Corporate .18" 7.41 .27 .02
credibility
ID = identiﬁcation with the social cause, Congruence = participant perceptions of
congruence, CCM = corporate-centric motives, OCM = other-centric motives,

Acceptance = acceptance of the alliance, Corporate credibility = participant perceptions
of corporate credibility
*p<.05, "p<.01
Step-down Analysis

The previous regression analysis showed that many of the independent variables
were good indicators of most of the outcome variables without indicating any mediating
variables. One way to test this order is through step-down analysis. By examining the
dependent variables in a pre-arranged order, a stronger comprehension of the consumer
response to the cause-brand alliance can develop. This test of the sequential order of the
effects of the dependent variable (Roy 1958) begins with step-down F values that
originate from the univariate F values of an AN COVA on the attributions of corporate
motive (with congruence and prevalence as independent variables and ﬁve covariates:

expectations of corporate support, pre-exposure attitude toward the cause, familiarity

with the cause, identiﬁcation with the cause and perceptions of social signiﬁcance of the

106

cause). Next, the effects of the independent variables, prevalence and congruence, on
acceptance of the alliance were tested with the attributions of corporate motive as
additional covariates. The third step tested the effects of the congruence and prevalence
on the perception with corporate credibility while adding the acceptance of the alliance as
another covariate. Finally, a test of the effects of the independent variables on attitude
was done while adding the ﬁnal covariate of perceptions of corporate credibility. Table
4.7 shows the step—down analysis results.

The stepdown analysis helps determine which variables have mediating roles in
consumer response to CRM campaigns. As the regression analysis suggests, attribution of
corporate motive is an important predictor of consumer response to a cause-brand
alliance. Additionally, the step-down analysis highlights the importance of consumer
acceptance of a cause-brand alliance. Acceptance inﬂuences both perceptions of
corporate credibility and attitude toward the corporation. Consistent with the regression
analysis, the step-down analysis suggests that even when making attributions of
corporate-centric motive, consumers will accept a cause-brand alliance.

For two relationships between variables, additional analyses were performed to
further gauge any mediation effects. The ﬁrst such relationship included the predicted
mediating effects of acceptance of the alliance on the relationship between attribution of
motive and perceptions of corporate credibility, and the second relationship was the
predicted mediating effect of perceptions of corporate credibility on the relationship
between the acceptance of an alliance and attitude toward the corporate alliance partner.
In both cases, the effects of the predicted independent variable remained signiﬁcant even

while controlling for the mediating variable. For example, when controlling for the

107

mediating effects of perceptions of corporate credibility, the effects of acceptance of the
alliance on the attitude toward the corporate alliance partner were still signiﬁcant.

Following the Baron and Kenny procedure (1986) for establishing mediation,
three conditions must be met. First, regression analysis must show that the independent
variable affects the mediator. Next, the independent variable must affect the dependent
variable. Finally, the dependent variable must be affected by the mediator. All three
conditions were met for both relationships tested. In the case of the mediating effect of
the acceptance of the alliance on the relationship between attribution of motives and
perceptions of corporate credibility, regression analysis demonstrated that attribution of
motives affected acceptance (Bow = .26, t(247) =4.35, p <.01, BCCM = .24, t(247) =4.02,
p < .01, R2 = .16) and that attributions of motive affected perceptions of corporate
credibility (Boon = .28, t(249) =4.71, p <.01, BCCM = .23, t(249) =3.84, p < .01, R2 = .17).
However, the effect of the attributions of motive on perceptions of corporate credibility
decreased when regressed along with acceptance of the alliance (BOCM = .22, t(244)
=2.94, p <.01, BCCM = .24, t(244) =3.83, p < .01, R2 = .22). These ﬁndings offer additional
support for the mediating role of acceptance of alliance in the relationship between the
attribution of motive and perceptions of corporate credibility.

A similar pattern emerged when testing for mediation in the relationship between
acceptance of the alliance and attitude toward the company by perceptions of corporate
credibility. Regression analysis shows that the independent variable, acceptance of the
alliance) affects the mediating variable (perceptions of corporate credibility, [3= .3 7,
t(247) =6.2l, p <.01, R2 = .14) and the dependent variable (attitude toward the company,

(3004 = .45, «242) =7.86, p <.01, R2 = .20), but when the mediating variable of

108

perceptions of credibility is regressed along with the independent variable, the effects of

acceptance of the alliance decreases (B = .38, t(249) =6.31, p < .01, R2 = .24).

109

Step down analysis

Table 4.7a

 

 

Sources of
Variable Ordering Variation Univariate F p Step-down F p
Other-centric motives Congruence .01 .91
Prevalence 1.67 .20
Congruence x .16 .69
Prevalence
Identiﬁcation“ 5.60 .02
Signiﬁcance 1.86 .17
Support
Expectations" 22.85 .00
Pre-exposure
attitude .02 .90
Corporate-centric
motives Congruence .20 .65
Prevalence .06 .81
Congruence x .01 .93
Prevalence
Identiﬁcation .29 .59
Signiﬁcance 2.00 .16
Support
Expectations 2.51 .12
Pre-exposure
attitude 1.66 .20
Alliance acceptance OCM" 9.7 .00
CCM" 7.90 .01
Congruence 1.78 . 18 1 .52 .22
Prevalence“ b 4.64 .03 4.17 .04
Congruence x 1.93 .17 2.50 .12
Prevalence
Identiﬁcation .82 .37 2.35 .13
Signiﬁcance 3.19 .08 1.66 .20
Support
Expectations“ b 19.37 .00 9.75 .00
Pre-exposure
attitude“ 4.64 .03 4.36 .04

 

The step-down F is based on analysis of covariance (AN COVA) with the variable(s) as
an additional covariate(s). All the tests were based on AN COVAs controlling for pretest
attitude toward the cause, perceptions of social signiﬁcance, expectations of corporate

support, familiarity with the cause and identiﬁcation with the cause.
a = signiﬁcant at the .05 level in the univariate ANCOVA
b = signiﬁcant at the .05 level in the step-down ANCOVA

110

Table 4.7b
Step down analysis continued

 

 

Sources of
Variable Ordering Variation Univariate F p Step—down F p
Corporate Credibility OCM" 20.76 .00
CCM” 15.39 .00
Acceptanceb 17.37 .00
Congruence .10 .75 1.96 .16
Prevalence .00 .98 .48 .49
Congruence X 1.06 .31 .97 .33
Prevalence
Identiﬁcation .51 .48 2.11 .15
Significance 1.62 .21 .03 .87
Support
Expectations“ 5.74 .02 .15 .70
Pre-exposure
attitude .24 .62 1.88 .17
Attitude toward the
Company OCM 2.04 .16
CCM 1.05 .31
Acceptanceb 18.10 .00
Corporate 10.75 .00
Credibility ”
Congruence .29 .59 .09 .76
Prevalenceb 1.41 .24 4.27 .04
Congruence x 3.04 .10 3.12 .06
Prevalenceb
Identiﬁcation .40 .53 .33 .57
Signiﬁcance" 3.79 .05 1.61 .21
Support
Expectations 1.38 .24 1.99 .16
Pre-exposure
attitude“ b 20.20 .00 20.41 .00

 

The step-down F is based on analysis of covariance (AN COVA) with the variable(s) as
an additional covariate(s). All the tests were based on AN COVAs controlling for pretest
attitude toward the cause, perceptions of social signiﬁcance, expectations of corporate
support, familiarity with the cause and identiﬁcation with the cause.

a = signiﬁcant at the .05 level in the univariate ANCOVA
b = signiﬁcant at the .05 level in the step-down ANCOVA

111

Table 4.8

 

List of hypotheses and ﬁndings
Hypothesis Relationship Predicted Supported?

Hla CCM attributions lessen alliance acceptance No

Hlb OCM attributions increase alliance acceptance Yes

H2 Alliance acceptance increases credibility perceptions Yes

H3 Credibility perceptions elicit more positive attitudes Yes

H4a Incongruent alliance leads to CCM attributions No

H4b Congruent alliance leads to OCM attributions Yes

HSa Identiﬁcation with the cause leads to corporate support Yes
expectations

HSb Higher corporate support expectations lead to OCM Yes
attributions

HSc Lower corporate support expectations lead to CCM No
attributions

H6a Lower signiﬁcance perceptions lead to CCM attributions No

H6b Higher signiﬁcance perceptions lead to OCM attributions Yes

H7a Identiﬁcation with those affected leads OCM attributions No

H7 b Identiﬁcation with the cause leads to OCM attributions Yes

H7c Lack of identiﬁcation with those affected leads to CCM No
attributions

H7d Lack of identiﬁcation with the cause leads to CCM No
attributions

H8a Women who identify with affected will make OCM No
attributions

H8b Women identify with the cause will make OCM attributions No

H8c Women who do not identify with those affected with make No
CCM attributions

H8d Women who do not identify with the cause will make CCM No

attributions

112

Figure 4.1
Model of Consumer Response to Cause-Brand Alliances as Found in This Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

Congruence
Nature of
the CBA .
Expectatrons
of Corporate
Support
T t
. . ‘ A .b . AW
Cognitive “"0?th Level 0f Perceptions TOW
Elaborations Corporate A3332“ r—u Corporate the .
Motive \ Cred1b1llty Corporaﬁon
Perceptions of
Identiﬁcation with Social
Nature of the social cause Signiﬁcance
Consumer

 

 

 

 

 

 

113

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION

Discussion

As a marketing strategy, cause-related marketing is expected to exceed $1.34
billion in corporate support in 2006 (Rexrode 2006). That is a 20% increase in corporate
support from 2005, and an increase of over 200% from the late 1990s. The continued
growth of CRM raises both empirical and strategic questions. Empirically, consumer
response to cause-brand alliances offers insight into the cognitive processes that precede
consumer purchase decisions. Strategically, consumer response offers insight into which
alliances provide the most beneﬁt for corporate alliance partners.

The inﬂuence of the ubiquitous presence of cause-related marketing today can be
found in the ﬁndings that consumers respond more positively to prevalent social causes.
While more research is necessary to determine why consumers respond so well to
prevalent causes, it suggests, at ﬁrst glance, it safe strategic option for practitioners. The
ﬁndings ﬁ'om this study show that breast cancer research is almost its own special case,
separate and removed ﬁom the cognitive processing elicited by other social causes.
Again, at ﬁrst glance, it seems as if forming an alliance with breast cancer research is a
safe way to encourage a positive consumer response to a corporation. However, early
CRM research focused on the practitioners’ concerns of perceptions of exploitation, and
cause-brand alliances with breast cancer causes have become so common that new
concerns of exploitation are rising (www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org). Accusations of

“pinkwashing” have arisen where companies with business practices that are neither

114

female- or family-friendly are accused of draping themselves in the pink ribbon of breast
cancer support to wash away the stain of the reality of their business practices.

The premise of this study was to gauge the effects of differences in individuals
and differences in the characteristics of cause-related marketing campaigns on consumer
response. Two such individual differences, identiﬁcation with the social cause and
identiﬁcation with those affected by the social cause, were found to have a positive effect
on a consumer’s response to a CRM campaign. Though the two variables were found to
be highly correlated and were subsequently collapsed into one identiﬁcation variable,
identiﬁcation with a social cause was shown to be a good predictor of consumer response
to a cause-brand alliance. These ﬁndings are consistent with previous research that
suggests that the self-perception of identity is an important element of consumer
responses (Lichtenstein, Drumwright and Braig 2004; Gupta and Pirsch 2006).

The contribution of this study can be differentiated ﬁ'om past work through the
strength of the relationship between identiﬁcation with a social cause and post-exposure
measures of attitude toward the corporation and corporate credibility. Initial attempts to
explicate self-perceptions of identiﬁcation have rested on how a consumer feels and have
simply used existing aﬁ‘ect measures such as attitudes and involvement (Lichtenstein,
Drumwright and Braig 2004) or values (Gupta and Pirsch 2006) as a means to measure
identiﬁcation. The effects of pre-exposure attitudes have been previously established
whether labeled as identiﬁcation or affect. Newer measures of values as an indicator for
identiﬁcation have been less successful. Stepping away ﬁ'om affective measures, this
study uses a consumer’s past behaviors as an indication of identiﬁcation. Behavioral

questions have long been used in employment interviews as human resources

115

professionals consider past behavior to be the best predictor of future behavior. This logic
was extended to consumer purchase behavior by predicting that consumers whose current
behavior shows support for a social cause through the clothes they wear and the media
stories they follow (past behavior) would be more likely to respond positively to a cause-
brand alliance involving that social cause (future behavior). The use of past behavior
circumvents the artifact of social desirability that can inﬂate affective identiﬁcation
measures. Many consumers may report that they have a positive attitude toward a social
cause without ever donating time or money toward the cause. The use of behavioral
measures helps separate out the consumers who say a social cause is good or involving
from the consumers who act like a social cause is good or involving. To use a cliché, the
behavioral measures pinpoint a consumer who is willing to put her money where her
mouth is. For corporations considering the development of a CBA, the success of the
behavioral measures in predicting post-exposure measures of attitudes and corporate
credibility allows corporations to turn that cliché on its head. By putting a product’s or
brand’s promotional budget (mouth) where consumers are already putting their money or
time, corporations can create CBAs that please their customer base and improve
consumer perceptions of the corporation.

In addition to individual differences among consumers, differences in
characteristics of CRM campaigns were expected to elicit differing responses from
consumers. Speciﬁcally, congruent alliances and prevalent social causes were predicted
to elicit more positive consumer responses. Support for these predictions was consistent
with some previous ﬁndings (Brown and Dacin 1997; Porter and Kramer 2002;

Broderick, Jogi and Garry 2003; Pracejus and Olsen 2004; Berger, Cunningham and

116

Drumwright 2004; Trimble and Rifon 2006). However, support for congruency in CBAs
has not been unequivocal, so it is not enough to say that consumers respond positively to
congruent alliances because in some cases (Ellen, Mohr and Webb 2000; Mizerski,
Mizerski and Sandler 2001) consumers have reported negative reactions to congruent
alliances. Therefore, it seems prudent to redeﬁne a positive consumer response as an
acceptance of a CBA. Put colloquially, the difference between congruence leading to
positive consumer response and acceptance as positive consumer response is the
difference between a consumer who thinks “these partners are the same, therefore, I like
them” and a consumer who simply thinks “I have no objections. This alliance is ﬁne.”
The results of this study suggest when consumers accept an alliance that their perceptions
of corporate credibility are stronger. Strong perceptions of corporate credibility then lead
to more positive attitudes toward the corporate alliance partner.

Past research (Trimble and Rifon 2006) as well as the differences between the
pretest ﬁndings and ﬁnal study ﬁndings of this project has suggested that consumer
evaluation of supposedly congruent alliances can be inconsistent. Additionally,
consumers’ perceptions of congruence have been shown as a better predictor of positive
consumer response than the actual characteristics of an alliance. Together these ﬁndings
suggest it is difficult to predict when consumers might think “these partners are the same,
therefore, I like them.” This re-emphasizes the importance of individual diﬁ‘erences in
consumers, like identiﬁcation with a social cause and pre-exposure measures of attitude,
and suggests that the characteristics of a CBA can not shape consumer response alone.
By accounting for the individual differences in consumers, alliance partners can better

predict how consumers will perceive any given characteristic.

117

Consumer attributions of corporate motive were predicted to mediate the effects
of the characteristics of the CRM campaign on consumer responses. Speciﬁcally,
congruent alliances were predicted to lead to attributions of other-centric motives and
then onto positive consumer responses. Conversely, consumers who made attributions of
corporate—centric motives were expected to respond less positively to a CBA. However,
consumers who perceived an alliance to be congruent simultaneously made attributions
of other-centric motives and attributions of corporate-centric motives. Attribution of
other-centric motives was a better predictor of positive consumer response, but a
correlation between attribution of corporate-centric motives and positive consumer
response exists, nonetheless. On its face, the ability of consumers to credit corporate
decision making simultaneously to a desire to help others and to a desire to help the
corporation is counter-intuitive. It does, however, have support in the sponsorship
literature (Rifon et al. 2004) and is found again when both the inﬂuence of the
expectations of corporate support and perceptions of social signiﬁcance are measured
Consumers who reported that they expected the corporation to participate in behavior
(like forming a cause-brand alliance with a particular social cause) simultaneously made
attributions of other-centric and corporate-centric motives. Additionally, consumers who
reported stronger perceptions of social signiﬁcance of the social cause in a CBA
simultaneously made attributions of other-centric and corporate-centric motives. Again,
however, the expectations of corporate support and perceptions of social signiﬁcance
were better predictors of attributions of other-centric motives than of company centric

motives.

118

Because a positive relationship was found between identiﬁcation with a social
cause and expectations of corporate support, it is possible that a strong relationship with a
cause allows consumers to attribute altruistic and proﬁt-oriented motives to the
corporations that form alliances with the consumer’s preferred social cause. For example,
the more a consumer identiﬁes with a social cause, the more a consumer would expect
the cause to be salient for others. Therefore, the more a consumer identiﬁes with a social
cause, the more a consumer would expect a corporation to support the social cause.
Stronger expectations of support then lead to stronger attributions of all corporate
motives, so while attributions of corporate-centric motives continue to increase, these
attributions are not as strong a predictor of consumer response as attributions of motive
based on the consumer’s identiﬁcation with the social cause.

Because the simultaneous attributions of motive occur in three situations that
ultimately lead to a positive consumer response to a CBA (identiﬁcation with a social
cause, perception of a congruent alliance and perception of a socially signiﬁcant cause), it
appears that even when consumers believe that corporations support a social cause in
order to further the corporation’s bottom line some consumers are still willing to look
favorably upon the alliance. With several antecedents necessary for consumers to
overlook their attributions of corporate-centric motives, these ﬁndings suggest that cause-
brand alliances should be strategically planned to ﬁt the speciﬁc characteristics of a
corporation’s customer base. Alliances meant to appeal to a broad, general audience that
are not tailored to the characteristics of that audience may not contain the antecedents
necessary for the audience to make stronger attributions of other-centric motives than

attributions of corporate-centric motives.

119

Limitations

As with any study, the discussion of the ﬁndings must include the limitations of
the project at hand. First, women were disproportionately represented in the sample. Most
of the student sample of the ﬁnal study was enrolled in a large, Midwestern public
university where 54.4% of the student body is female. In the ﬁnal study, 73.7% of the
sample was female. This disproportionate representation was a result of self-selection for
study participation. While not intentional, the gender make-up of the ﬁnal study sample
made any ﬁndings (or non-ﬁndings) based on gender suspect. Because relationships were
predicted based on interaction between gender and individual differences, the study
ﬁndings must be considered incomplete without a valid gender comparison.

Another limitation of the sample was the use of student participants. Conventional
wisdom on college students states that they should not be considered full-ﬂedged
consumers. While many college students at large, public universities (like those used in
the pretests and the ﬁnal study) are living away from their parents and making consumer
purchase decisions of their own, these same students frequently have considerable
ﬁnancial support from their parents. Therefore, their consumer purchase decisions may
not necessarily carry the same consequences as consumers who provide the sole means of
their own ﬁnancial support. Without the same concern for consequence and risk, a
sample of college students made not be generalizable to a population at large. In this
particular study, the product associated with the CBA would be considered a low-cost
item that would carry less risk or consequence, and it is a product appropriate for a
college student sample. However, this does not eliminate all concerns about generalizing

the ﬁndings of the sample to the population.

120

Another concern for generalizing the ﬁndings is the use of a ﬁctitious company
devoid of reputation or history with consumers. Likewise, the lack of mention of a
speciﬁc NPO that supports the social cause removes another element of reputation or
history with the consumer. These omissions may remove important variables ﬁom the
model of consumer response to a cause-brand alliance. A consumer’s past experience
with either a corporation or an NPO may affect the attribution of corporate motives. For
example, the ﬁndings that some consumers are willing to overlook their own attributions
of corporate-centric motive may not hold true when the relationships with the NPO and
the corporation are included. The same past experience could also inﬂuence the
acceptance of an alliance. Without the use of a real corporation or mention of an NPO,
the ﬁndings of this study are subject to the artiﬁcial nature of their creation.

Another artiﬁcial construct of the study was using a press release as the stimulus
material. Even though many corporations now have press releases available on their Web
sites, press releases are not typical reading material for consumers. A press release was
chosen over an advertisement to avoid any confounds of the visual imagery of
advertisements. However, consumers typically would experience the verbal content of a
press release after the information had been rewritten by a newspaper or magazine
journalist. While the external validity of the study would have improved through the use
of a newspaper article as the stimulus material, it is possible tht the credibility of the
source (in this instance, the newspaper) could have inﬂuenced the results. Therefore, the
use of a press release avoid the confounds of visual imagery and source credibility but

weakens the external validity of the ﬁndings.

121

A ﬁnal limitation of the study suggests the ﬁrst step for future research. The
regression analysis and step—down analysis used in this study provide a ﬁrst glance into
the relationships between individual consumer differences and consumer response to a
CBA as well as the relationships between differences in CBA characteristics and
consumer response to a CBA. However, more powerful statistical analysis is available to

test the model of effects, but was not performed.

Future Research

The limitations of this sample for this study also suggest some direction for ﬁrture
research. First, a more balanced gender distribution would allow for testing of the
predicted interaction between gender and differences among individual consumers.
Because past research suggests that differences between genders can be expected (Berger,
Cunningham and Kozinets 1999; Ross, Patterson and Stutts 1992; Ross, Stutts and
Patterson 1990), a future study that allows for testing of the predicted interactions would
contribute to the literature. Because past gender differences in response to a CBA were
attributed to social constructions of gender (women are considered more nurturing and
more prosocial) without measuring why participants responded differently by gender, it
would be beneﬁcial to test comparisons between individual differences like attitude and
identiﬁcation measures and group differences like gender. Additionally, a study sample
that did not solely consistent of the traditional 18-24 year old college students should
provide ﬁndings that are more generalizable and that make a stronger contribution than

the limited nature of the ﬁndings ﬁom the current study.

122

One aspect of the inﬂuence of prevalence of a social cause that was not fully
captured in this study were the antecedents for the prevalence. The study measured only
the perceptions of prevalence and not the differences between situation-driven and
enduring causes. Some causes are on-going while other social causes reﬂect a dramatic
and newsworthy change in society. The current study did not differentiate between
prevalence as result of a enduring, systemic problem and that of a time-sensitive social
anomaly. For example, Hurricane Katrina brought hurricane disaster relief efforts to the
forefront of the charitable efforts. Prior to that speciﬁc situation, hurricane disaster relief
was not a prevalent cause. While hurricane have struck the United States before and aﬁer
Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Shores, this prevalence of hurricane disaster relief as a
social cause is likely driven by this one event and the preponderance of resulting media
coverage. This is different from an enduring social cause like breast cancer research
which has no seasonal or geographical restrictions and no pandemic tendencies that call
for immediate action and media coverage. Research exists that compares long-term and
short-term commitments to social causes (Van den Brink, Odekerken-Schroder and
Pauwels 2006) and compares support for disaster-related causes and ongoing causes (Cui
et al. 2003; Ellen, Mohr and Webb 2000). However, the past research does not compare
social causes of equal prevalence. Therefore, a future study have compares equally
prevalent social causes of different types (event-driven and enduring) would provide
strategic insight to the development of cause-brand alliances.

The current study found a high correlation between the two measured
identiﬁcation variables and collapsed the two. A future direction for CBA research could

try to tease out any discernible differences between identiﬁcation with the social cause

123

and identiﬁcation with those affected by the cause. On their face, the two variables seem
different enough to separate. For example, a consumer who does not normally identify
with hurricane disaster relief might have identiﬁed with citizens of New Orleans affected
by Hurricane Katrina because of racial or socio-economic identity. That same consumer
would not necessarily identify with the residents of a tony Miami beach community when
they are threatened with a hurricane. There is a face validity to the assertion that these
two types of identiﬁcation are differentiable and actionable. However, the items used to
measure the two variables did not provide results that were differentiable or actionable.
Further testing of the scale items with different populations and different social causes is
recommended.

Additionally, the identiﬁcation items were behavioral in nature because past
behavior was predicted to be a good indicator of future behavior. However, the current
study only measure consumer response through measures of attitude and perceptions of
corporate credibility. To completely test the assertion that past behavior predicts future
behavior, measures of purchase intention or purchase behavior are needed.

One measure of purchase behavior that has been tested in past cause-related
marketing research is consumer acceptance of price and performance trade-offs (Barone,
Miyazaki and Taylor 2000; Meyer 1999; Pracejus and Olsen 2004). Gender (Barone,
Miyazaki and Taylor 2000) and characteristics of the alliance (Meyer 1999; Pracejus and
Olsen 2004; Subrahmanyan 2004) have been found to inﬂuence the amount of price and
performance trade-offs consumers will accept in order to provide support to a social
cause. Because this study found a relationship between identiﬁcation with a social and

acceptance of an alliance that arguably leads to a positive consumer response to the

124

alliance, a major contribution to the literature could be made with a study that tested a
model of eﬁ‘ects that started with identiﬁcation with a social cause and ended with
measured acceptance of price or performance trade-offs. For example, it would ﬁrst be
informative to know if identiﬁcation with a social cause is, indeed, related to acceptance
of trade-offs. Additionally, comparing the trade-offs accepted between several
antecedents including identiﬁcation with a social cause, congruence of an alliance and
gender would provide great insight to managers trying to create a strategic cause-brand
alliance.

Finally, the measures of consumer response in this study focused almost solely on
measures related to the corporate alliance partner. Little emphasis was placed on the risks
and rewards available to NPO alliance partners or the consumers themselves. Because
participants who identiﬁed with the social cause reported attributions of both corporate-
centric motives and other-centric motives, it would be beneﬁcial to the non-proﬁt and
voluntary sector to understand if the attributions of corporate-centric motives had a
negative effect on the participants’ relationship with the social cause. As mentioned
previously, social psychology suggests that consumers expect to agree with those that
they like, and if a consumer likes an NPO that supports a speciﬁc social cause but does
not agree with the actions of that social cause, the resulting dissonance of disagreeing
with someone a consumer likes might have an impact on the consumer’s relationship
with the social cause.

Similarly, consumers themselves are exposed to risks and rewards by supporting
(or withholding support for) a cause-brand alliance. Very little research has been done on

consumers’ mental states after exposure to a CBA. It is not reported in the literature if

125

consumers feeling guilty about or benevolent about or hounded by the current
preponderance of CBAs. Without any knowledge of consumer affective response as
related to the consumer him- or herself, it is difﬁth to predict if consumers will dread
future CBAS (like they might political advertising) or eagerly anticipate them (like they
might Super Bowl advertising). This practically untapped direction of research could also
provide insight into the established antecedents of consumer response tested within this
proj ect—individual difference among consumers and the characteristics of the cause-

brand alliance.

126

APPENDD( A

Pretest 1 questionnaire items and instructions

127

Please click on the circle closest to the word or phrase which best reﬂects your feelings
about the social causes listed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social Cause
charity leader not a
charity leader
popular not
popular
widely accepted not
widely accepted
many like it few
like it

Please click on the circle closest to the word or phrase which best reﬂects your feelings
about each combination described below.
Water Bottling Company and the Social Cause

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

complementary

noncomplementary
appropriate

inappropriate
logical

illogical
good ﬁt bad
ﬁt
consistent

inconsistent
makes sense

 

 

 

 

 

doesn’t make sense

128

Demographics

We would like to collect some descriptive information about each participant. Please

mark the appropriate answer.

1. What is your sex? Male
Female

2. What is your age?

3. What is your race?
Please mark one or more of the following.
Asian

African-American
Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino
Native American
Other

4. What is the highest level of education you have obtained?
Grade school

High school diploma

Some college

 

College degree

Some graduate school
Graduate degree
Other

129

APPENDIX B

Pretest 2 questionnaire items and instructions

130

Some businesses provide support to social causes through donations, sponsorships and other
alliances. For the following list of social causes, please mark the circle that best indicates your
opinion about how much support these causes receive from businesses. Consider your personal
experiences having seen or not seen ads, news reports, or other communications about how wide
or substantial the support each cause receives.

neither
strongly agree or strongly

agree agree disagree disagree disagree
l.The social cause is strongly supported by

the business community. 1 2 3 4 5

2.The social cause is frequently part of
business promotions. 1 2 3 4 5

3.T‘he support from the business community
for the social cause is highly visible. 1 2 3 4 5

4.1 can easily recall an example of the
support the business community 1 2 3 4 5
provides the social cause.

5.The social cause is popular with business. 1 2 3 4 5

6.The social cause appears to be a charity
leader in terms of the support offered 1 2 3 4 5
by the business community.

7.'Ihe social cause is widely accepted by
businesses as a cause to support 1 2 3 4 5

8.1‘he social cause is well-liked by the
business community. 1 2 3 4 5

131

Some businesses support social causes with donations generated by consumer
purchases. The next set of statements are meant to measure your beliefs about the
nature of the relationship between a water bottling company and the social causes it
might support with donations generated by consumer purchases. Please click on the
circle closest to the word or phrase which best reﬂects your feelings.

The congruence of the alliance between Enrichment Bottling and the cause. We would
like to know your perceptions about the relationship between Enrichment Bottling and
the cause that they support Please mark to the choice which best reﬂects your feelings
about the relationship between Enrichment Bottling and the cause in the press release you read

neither
strongly agree or strongly

agree agree disagree disagree disagree

1.If the donation were made up of the

donor’s products instead of ﬁnancial l 2 3 4 5
contributions, the donation would still be

important to the social cause.

2.The products made by the donor help

ﬁx the problems of the social cause. 1 2 3 4 5
3.The business expertise of the donor

is as important to the social cause as 1 2 3 4 5
its monetary contributions.

4.There is a direct relationship between the
expertise of the donor and the problems of 1 2 3 4 5
the social cause.

132

Demographics

We would like to collect some descriptive information about each participant. Please

mark the appropriate answer.

1. What is your sex? Male
Female

2. What is your age?

3. What is your race?
Please mark one or more of the following.
Asian

Aﬁican-American
Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino
Native American
Other

4. What is the highest level of education you have obtained?
Grade school

High school diploma

Some college

 

College degree

Some graduate school
Graduate degree
Other

133

APPENDIX C

Pretest 3 questionnaire items and instructions

134

Some businesses provide support to social causes through donations, sponsorships and other
alliances. For the following list of social causes, please mark the circle that best indicates your
opinion about how much support these causes receive from businesses. Consider your personal
experiences having seen or not seen ads, news reports, or other communications about how wide
or substantial the support each cause receives.

neither
strongly agree or strongly
agree agree disagree disagree disagree
l.The social cause is strongly supported by

the business community. 1 2 3 4 5

2.The social cause is frequently part of
business promotions. 1 2 3 4 5

3.The support from the business community
for the social cause is highly visible. 1 2 3 4 5

4.1 can easily recall an example of the
support the business community 1 2 3 4 5
provides the social cause.

5.The social cause is popular with business. 1 2 3 4 5

6.The social cause appears to be a charity
leader in terms of the support offered 1 2 3 4 5
by the business community.

7 .The social cause is widely accepted by
businesses as a cause to support 1 2 3 4 5

srhe social cause is well-liked by the
business community. 1 2 3 4 5

135

The congruence of the alliance between Enrichment Bottling and the cause. When
choosing a social cause for an alliance, corporations often support a social cause that is considered a
good ﬁt with the corporation. A good ﬁt for an alliance happens when the donating company and the
recipient of the donation are closely related.

The next set of statements are meant to measure your beliefs about the ﬁt of the relationship between a
water bottling company and hurricane disaster relief. Please click on the circle closest to the word or

phrase which best reﬂects your feelings.

neither

strongly agree or strongly

l. The company and the social cause are a
good ﬁt.

2. For the company, the actions of bottling
water and the social cause are consistent.

3. The water bottling company and the social
cause are compatible with each other.

4. A relationship between the company and
the social cause is a good match.

5. An alliance between the water bottling
company and the social cause is logical.

6. A relationship between the water bottling
company and the social cause makes sense.

agree agree disagree disagree disagree

I 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 5

136

Demographics

We would like to collect some descriptive information about each participant. Please

mark the appropriate answer.

1. What is your sex? Male
Female

2. What is your age?

3. What is your race?
Please mark one or more of the following.
Asian

Aﬁican-American
Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino
Native American
Other

4. What is the highest level of education you have obtained?
Grade school

High school diploma

Some college

 

College degree

Some graduate school
Graduate degree
Other

137

APPENDIX D

Questionnaire for the high congruence, high prevalence condition

138

l-A.

Please check closest to the word within each pair that best describes how you feel about

the following social causes. For example, if you think that breast cancer matters to you, you
might respond like this:

Matters to me

good
unpleasant
unfavorable

familiar

good
unpleasant
unfavorable

familiar

good
unpleasant
unfavorable

familiar

good
unpleasant
unfavorable

familiar

X

-—\-——__

 

 

Breast cancer research

Hurricane disaster relief

Water conservation

139

does not matter to me

bad
pleasant
favorable

unfamiliar

bad
pleasant
favorable

unfamiliar

bad
pleasant

favorable

unfamiliar

bad

pleasant

favorable

unfamiliar

l-B.

Some businesses provide support to social causes through donations, sponsorships and other
alliances. For the following list of social causes, please mark the circle that best indicates your
opinion about how much support these causes receive from businesses. Consider your personal
experiences having seen or not seen ads, news reports, or other communications about how wide

or substantial the support each cause receives.

strongly
agree
1.Breast cancer research is strongly
supported by the business community. I

2.Breast cancer research is frequently part of
business promotions. 1

3.The support from the business community
for breast cancer research is highly visible. 1

4.1 can easily recall an example of the
support the business community 1
provides breast cancer research.

5. Breast cancer research is popular with 1
business.

6. Breast cancer research appears to be a
charity leader in terms of the support offered 1
by the business community.

7. Breast cancer research is widely accepted by
businesses as a cause to support. 1

is. Breast cancer research is well-liked by the
business community. 1

9.Hurricane disaster relief is strongly supported
by the business community. 1

10.Hurlicane disaster relief is frequently part of
business promotions. l

140

agree

neither
agree or strongly

disagree disagree disagree

3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5

11.The support from the business community
for hurricane disaster relief is highly visible.

ﬂ

12.1 can easily recall an example of the
support the business community 1
provides hurricane disaster relief.

13. Hurricane disaster relief is popular with 1
business.

14. Hurricane disaster relief appears to be a
charity leader in terms of the support offered 1
by me business community

15. Hurricane disaster relief is widely accepted
by businesses as a cause to support. 1

16. Hurricane disaster relief is well-liked by
the business community. 1

l7.Social equality in cartography is
strongly supported by the business community. 1

18. Social equality in cartography is frequently
part of business promotions. 1

19.The support from the business community
for social equality in cartography is 1
highly visible.

20.1 can easily recall an example of the
support the business community 1
provides social equality in cartography.

~

21. Social equality in cartography is popular
with business

22. Social equality in cartography appears to
be a charity leader in terms of the support
offered by the business community.

~

141

23. Social equality in cartography is widely
accepted by businesses as a cause to support. 1

24. Social equality in cartography is well-liked
by the business community. 1

25.Water conservation is strongly supported
by the business community. 1

26. Water conservation is frequently part of
business promotions. 1

27.The support from the business community
for water conservation is highly visible. 1

28.1 can easily recall an example of the
support the business community 1
provides water conservation.

—

29. Water conservation is popular with business.

30. Water conservation appears to be a charity
leader in terms of the support offered by the 1
business community.

31. Water conservation is widely accepted by
businesses as a cause to support. 1

32. Water conservation is well-liked by the
business community. 1

142

l-C.

Reactions to those affected by social causes This section contains questions about your
reactions to those aﬂected by social causes. Please read each statement and circle the number
that best reﬂects your opinion about your reactions to those cﬂected by social causes.

neither
strongly agree or strongly
agree agree disagree disagree disagree
1.When someone criticizes those 1 2 3 4 5
affected by breast cancer research,
it feels like a personal insult.
2.1 am very interested in what others 1 2 3 4 5
think about those affected by
breast cancer research.
3.When I talk about those affected by l 2 3 4 5
breast cancer research, I usually say
we rather than they.
4.The successes of those affected by l 2 3 4 5

breast cancer research are
my successes.

5.When someone praises those affected 1 2 3 4 5
by breast cancer research, it feels like
a personal compliment.

6.If a story in the media criticized those 1 2 3 4 5
affected by breast cancer research, I
would feel embarrassed.

143

7.When someone criticizes those 1
affected by hurricane disaster relief,
it feels like a personal insult.

8.1 am very interested in what others 1
think about those affected by
hurricane disaster relief.

9.When I talk about those affected by 1
hurricane disaster relief, I usually say
we rather than they.

10.The successes of those affected by 1

hurricane disaster relief are
my successes.

l 1.When someone praises those affected 1
by hurricane disaster relief, it feels like
a personal compliment.

12.If a story in the media criticized those 1
affected by hurricane disaster relief, I
would feel embarrassed.

13.When someone criticizes those 1
affected by social equality in cartography,
it feels like a personal insult.

14.1 am very interested in what others 1

drink about those affected by
social equality in cartography.

15.When I talk about those affected by 1
social equality in cartography, I usually
say we rather than they.

16.The successes of those affected by 1
social equality in cartography are
my successes.

 

17.When someone praises those affected
by social equality in cartography, it
feels like a personal compliment.

18.1f a story in the media criticized those

affected by social equality in cartography,

I would feel embarrassed.

l9.When someone criticizes those
affected by water conservation,
it feels like a personal insult.

20.1 am very interested in what others
think about those affected by
water conservation.

21.When I talk about those affected by
water conservation, I usually say
we rather than they.

22.The successes of those affected by
water conservation are
my successes.

23.When someone praises those affected
by water conservation, it feels like
a personal compliment.

24.1f a story in the media criticized those

affected by water conservation, I
would feel embarrassed.

1

1

l

 

145

I'D.
Social causes This section contains questions about how you feel about social causes. Please
read each statement and circle the number that best reﬂects your opinion about social causes.

neither
strongly agree or strongly
agree agree disagree disagree disagree
l.It is important to me that 1 2 3 4 5
the goal of breast cancer research
is achieved.
2 I see myself as a supporter of 1 2 3 4 5
breast cancer research.
3.My ﬁiends see me as a supporter 1 2 3 4 5
of breast cancer research.
4.] closely follow news of the cause 1 2 3 4 5

breast cancer research via ANY

of the following: a) on the Internet,
b) on television news or a newspaper,
or c) in person.

5.Being a supporter of breast cancer 1 2 3 4 5
research is important to me.

6.1 always display my support of l 2 3 4 5
breast cancer research with
words or logos at school, work,
where I live, or on my clothing.

7. Breast cancer research is 1 2 3 4 5
everyone’s problem.

8. I believe that breast cancer research 1 2 3 4 5
affects too many people.

9. The impact of breast cancer research 1 2 3 4 5
extends beyond the number of people
directly affected.

146

10.It is important to me that
the goal of hurricane disaster relief
is achieved.

11.1 see myself as a supporter of
hurricane disaster relief.

12.My friends see me as a supporter
of hurricane disaster relief.

13.1 closely follow news of hurricane
disaster relief via ANY of the
following: a) on the Internet,

b) on television news or a newspaper,
or c) in person.

14.Being a supporter of hurricane
disaster relief is important to me.

15.1 always display my support of
hurricane disaster relief with
words or logos at school, work,
where I live, or on my clothing.

16.Hurricane disaster relief is
everyone’s problem.

17.1 believe that hurricane disaster relief
affects too many people.

18.The impact of hurricane disaster relief
extends beyond the number of people
directly affected.

147

19.It is importam to me that
the goal of social equality in cartography
is achieved.

20.1 see myself as a supporter of
social equality in cartography.

21.My ﬁiends see me as a supporter
of social equality in cartography.

22.1 closely follow news of social
equality in cartography via ANY
of the following: a) on the Intemet,
b) on television news or a newspaper,
or c) in person.

23.Being a supporter of social equality in
cartography is important to me.

24.1 always display my support of
social equality in cartography with
words or logos at school, work,
where I live, or on my clothing.

25.Social equality in cartography is
everyone’s problem.

26.1 believe that social equality in
cartography aﬂ'ects too many people.

27.The impact of social equality in
cartography extends beyond the number
of people directly affected.

148

 

28.It is important to me that 1 2 3 4 5
the goal of water conservation

is achieved.

29.1 see myself as a supporter of l 2 3 4 5
water conservation.

30.My ﬁiends see me as a supporter 1 2 3 4 5
of water conservation.

31.1 closely follow news of l 2 3 4 5

water conservation via ANY of the
following: a) on the Internet,

b) on television news or a newspaper,
or c) in person.

32.Being a supporter of water conservation 1 2 3 4 5
is important to me.
33.1 always display my support of 1 2 3 4 5

water conservation with
words or logos at school, work,
where I live, or on my clothing.

34.Water conservation is 1 2 3 4 5
everyone’s problem.

35.1 believe that water conservation 1 2 3 4 5
affects too many people.

36.The impact of water conservation 1 2 3 4 5
extends beyond the number of people
directly affected.

Once you have completed this ﬁrst set of questions, please take a moment to read the
press release that follows. After reading the press release, please complete the remainder
of the questionnaire.

149

Please take a moment to read the press release on the next page. After reading the
press release, you may complete the remainder of the questionnaire.

Help is on the way for those in need of hurricane disaster relief, according to
officials from Enrichment Bottling. Enrichment Bottling is introducing a new campaign
to raise money for hurricane disaster relief

“We can help. So we will,” stated an Enrichment Bottling spokesperson. “There’s
a way for us help someone else while we go about the every day business of our
business.”

Enrichment Bottling will donate a portion of its proﬁts from the sales of the
bottled water purchased during the month of August to hurricane disaster relief. In-store
displays will carry the information about the donations, and Enrichment Bottling will
soon have information about the donations on its Web site. The Enrichment spokesperson
said that the Web site will include information for individuals wanting to make their own
donations.

150

2"Ae
Enrichment Bottling and Hurricane Disaster Relief Below is a set of word pairs. Please
mark closest to the word which best reﬂects your feelings about Enrichment Bottling and
Hurricane Disaster Relief in the advertisement you saw.

Enrichment Bottling

good _ _ _ _ __ _ _ bad
unpleasant pleasant
unfavorable favorable

Hurricane Disaster Relief
good _ _ _ __ _ _ __ bad
unpleasant __ __ __ _ __ _ __ pleasant
unfavorable favorable
2-B.

Enrichment Bottling This section contains questions about Enrichment Bottling. Please read
each statement and circle the number that best reﬂects your opinion about Enrichment
Bottling.

neither
strongly agree or strongly
agree agree disagree disagree disagree

1. Enrichment Bottling 1 2 3 4 5
has a great amount of experience.
2. Enrichment Bottling l 2 3 4 5
is skilled in what they do.
3. Enrichment Bottling 1 2 3 4 5
has great expertise.
4. Enrichment Bottling 1 2 3 4 5

does not have much experience.

5. I trust Enrichment Bottling. 1 2 3 4 5

151

6. Enrichment Bottling 1 2 3 4 5
makes truthful claims.

7. Enrichment Bottling 1 2 3 4 5
is honest.

8. I do not believe what Enrichment 1 2 3 4 5
Bottling tells me.

2-C.

The congruence of the alliance between Enrichment Bottling and hurricane disaster

relief. When choosing a social cause for an alliance, corporations often support a social cause that is
considered a good ﬁt with the corporation. A good ﬁt for an alliance happens when the donating
company and the recipient of the donation are closely related.

The next set of statements are meant to measure your beliefs about the ﬁt of the relationship between a
water bottling company and hurricane disaster relief. Please click on the circle closest to the word or
phrase which best reﬂects your feelings.

neither
strongly agree or strongly

agree agree disagree disagree disagree

1. The company and hurricane disaster relief
are a good ﬁt. 1 2 3 4 5

2. For the company, the actions of bottling
water and hurricane disaster relief I 2 3 4 5
are consistent.

3. The water bottling company and the social
cause are compatible with each other. 1 2 3 4 5

4. A relationship between the company and
hurricane disaster relief is a good match. 1 2 3 4 5

5. An alliance between the water bottling
company and hurricane disaster relief is logical. l 2 3 4 5

6. A relationship between the water bottling
compmy and hurricane disaster relief 1 2 3 4 5
makes sense.

152

2-D.

The alliance between Enrichment Bottling and hurricane disaster relief Please read
each statement and circle the number of the response that best reﬂects your feelings about why
Enrichment Bottling is supporting hurricane disaster relief in the press release you read.

neither
strongly agree or
agree agree disagree
l.The company supports 1 2 3
hurricane disaster relief because
they care about the people affected.
2.The company does not have 1 2 3
a genuine concern for the
welfare of the people affected.
3.The company really cares I 2 3
about publicizing

hurricane disaster relief to the public.

4.The company supports 1 2 3
hurricane disaster relief because it will
increase proﬁts.

5.The company supports 1 2 3
hurricane disaster relief to persuade me
to buy its products.

6.The company supports 1 2 3
hurricane disaster relief to create a
positive public image.

7.The company beneﬁts by l 2 3
supporting hurricane disaster relief.

8.The company supports 1 2 3
hurricane disaster relief because it is
the ethical thing to do.

9.The company supports 1 2 3
hurricane disaster relief because it is a
lobbying tool.

10. The company supports 1 2 3

hurricane disaster relief because
customers like it.

153

strongly

disagree disagree

4

5

1 l.Cause-related marketing is the
popular thing to do, and that’s why
The (no cap) company is doing it.

12. The company likes to give
back to the community.

13. Supporting hurricane disaster relief
helps The (no cap)company compete
with other companies who donate to
worthy causes.

14. Supporting hurricane disaster relief
earns the company free press,
and that is why the company does it.

15. The company believes it
doesn’t need to lower prices when it
uses cause-related marketing.

16. The company donates to
hurricane disaster relief because other
companies donate to similar causes.

17. The company is legally
required to donate to worthy causes.

18.The company can charge higher prices
for its products when it donates to
hurricane disaster relief.

19. The alliance will create higher stock
prices for the company.

154

 

 

2'Ee

The Alliance between the company and hurricane disaster relief Please read each

statement and circle the number of the response that best reﬂects your feelings about the
alliance between the company and hurricane disaster relief in the advertisement you saw.

neither
strongly agree or

agree agree disagree

1.1 agree with the alliance between 1 2 3
the company and hurricane disaster relief.

2.1 don’t have any problems with the 1 2 3
alliance between the company and
hurricane disaster relief.

3.More companies should do something 1 2 3
like the alliance between
the company and hurricane disaster relief.

4.The alliance between the company 1 2 3
and hurricane disaster relief is a
bad idea.

5.1 reject the alliance between 1 2 3
the company and hurricane disaster relief.

6.] approve of the alliance between 1 2 3
the company and hurricane disaster relief

7.I expect a company like Errichment l 2 3
Bottling to support a cause like
hurricane disaster relief.

8.1 am not surprised that Enrichment 1 2 3
Bottling is making a donation to
hurricane disaster relief.

9.1 could have predicted that a water 1 2 3

bottling company would offer help to
hurricane disaster relief.

155

strongly

disagree disagree

4

5

2-F.

Demographics

We would like to collect some descriptive information about each participant. Please

mark the appropriate answer.

1. What is your sex? Male
Female

2. What is your age?

3. What is your race?
Please mark one or more of the following.
Asian

African-American
Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino
Native American
Other

4. What is the highest level of education you have obtained?
Grade school

High school diploma

Some college

 

College degree

Some graduate school
Graduate degree
Other

156

 

APPENDD( E

Questionnaire for the high congruence, low prevalence condition

157

l-A.

Please check closest to the word within each pair that best describes how you feel about
the following social causes. For example, if you think that breast cancer matters to you, you

might respond like this:

Matters to me

good
unpleasant
unfavorable

familiar

good
unpleasant
unfavorable

familiar

good
unpleasant
unfavorable

familiar

good
unpleasant
unfavorable

familiar

Breast cancer research

Hurricane disaster relief

Water conservation

158

does not matter to me

bad

pleasant
favorable

unfamiliar

bad

pleasant
favorable

unfamiliar

bad

pleasant
favorable

unfamiliar

bad

pleasant
favorable

unfamiliar

l-B.

Some businesses provide support to social causes through donations, sponsorships and other
alliances. For the following list of social causes, please mark the circle that best indicates your
opinion about how much support these causes receive ﬁ'om businesses. Consider your personal
experiences having seen or not seen ads, news reports, or other communications about how wide

or substantial the support each cause receives.

strongly
agree
1.Breast cancer research is strongly
supported by the business community. 1

2.Breast cancer research is frequently part of
business promotions. 1

3.The support from the business community
for breast cancer research is highly visible. 1

4.1 can easily recall an example of the
support the business community 1
provides breast cancer research.

5. Breast cancer research is popular with 1
business.

6. Breast cancer research appears to be a
charity leader in terms of the support offered 1
by the business community.

7. Breast cancer research is widely accepted by
businesses as a cause to support. 1

8. Breast cancer research is well-liked by the
business community. 1

9.Hurricane disaster relief is strongly supported
by the business community. 1

10.Hurlicane disaster relief is frequently part of
business promotions. 1

159

agree

neither
agree or strongly

disagree disagree disagree

3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5

11.The support from the business community
for hurricane disaster relief is highly visible.

12.1 can easily recall an example of the
support the business community
provides hurricane disaster relief.

13. Hurricane disaster relief is popular with
business.

14. Hurricane disaster relief appears to be a
charity leader in terms of the support offered
by the business community.

15. Hurricane disaster relief is widely accepted
by businesses as a cause to support.

16. Hurricane disaster relief is well-liked by
the business community.

17.Social equality in cartography is
strongly supported by the business community.

18. Social equality in cartography is frequently
part of business promotions.

19.The support ﬁom the business community
for social equality in cartography is
highly visible.

20.1 can easily recall an example of the
support the business community
provides social equality in cartography.

21. Social equality in cartography is popular
with business.

22. Social equality in cartography appears to
be a charity leader in terms of the support
offered by the business community.

160

5?

 

23. Social equality in cartography is widely
accepted by businesses as a cause to support.

24. Social equality in cartography is well-liked
by the business community.

25.Water conservation is strongly supported
by the business community.

26. Water conservation is ﬁ'equently part of
business promotions.

27.The support from the business community
for water conservation is highly visible.

28.1 can easily recall an example of the
support the business community
provides water conservation.

29. Water conservation is popular with business.

30. Water conservation appears to be a charity
leader in terms of the support offered by the
business community.

31. Water conservation is widely accepted by
businesses as a cause to support.

32. Water conservation is well-liked by the
business community.

1

161

 

 

l-C.

Reactions to those affected by social causes This section contains questions about your
reactions to those aﬁrected by social causes. Please read each statement and circle the number
that best reﬂects your opinion about your reactions to those aﬁ’ected by social causes.

neither
strongly agree or strongly

agree agree disagree disagree disagree

1.When someone criticizes those 1 2 3 4 5
affected by breast cancer research,
it feels like a personal insult.

 

2.1 am very interested in what others 1 2 3 4 5

think about those affected by
breast cancer research.

3.When I talk about those affected by l 2 3 4 5
breast cancer research, I usually say
we rather than they.

4.The successes of those affected by 1 2 3 4 5
breast cancer research are
my successes.

5.When someone praises those affected 1 2 3 4 5
by breast cancer research, it feels like
a personal compliment.

6.If a story in the media criticized those 1. 2 3 4 5

affected by breast cancer research, I
would feel embarrassed.

162

 

7.When someone criticizes those
affected by hurricane disaster relief,
it feels like a personal insult.

8.1 am very interested in what others
think about those affected by
hurricane disaster relief.

9.When I talk about those affected by
hurricane disaster relief, I usually say
we rather than they.

10.The successes of those affected by
hurricane disaster relief are
my successes.

l 1.When someone praises those affected
by hurricane disaster relief, it feels like
a personal compliment.

12.1f a story in the media criticized those
affected by hurricane disaster relief, I
would feel embarrassed.

13.When someone criticizes those

affected by social equality in cartography,

it feels like a personal insult.

14.1 am very interested in what others

think about those affected by
social equality in cartography.

15.When I talk about those affected by
social equality in cartography, I usually
say we rather than they.

16.The successes of those affected by
social equality in cartography are
my successes.

163

17.When someone praises those affected 1 2 3 4 5
by social equality in cartography, it
feels like a personal compliment.

18.1f a story in the media criticized those 1 2 3 4 5
affected by social equality in cartography,
I would feel embarrassed.

l9.When someone criticizes those 1 2 3 4 5
affected by water conservation,
it feels like a personal insult.

20.1 am very interested in what others 1 2 3 4 5
think about those affected by
water conservation.

 

21 .When I talk about those affected by 1 2 3 4 5
water conservation, I usually say
we rather than they.

22.The successes of those affected by l 2 3 4 5
water conservation are
my successes.

23.When someone praises those affected 1 2 3 4 5
by water conservation, it feels like
a personal compliment.

24.1f a story in the media criticized those 1 2 3 4 5
affected by water conservation, I
would feel embarrassed.

164

 

1-D.

Social causes This section contains questions about how you feel about social causes. Please
read each statement and circle the number that best reﬂects your opinion about social causes.

strongly
agree

l.It is important to methat l
the goal of breast cancer research
is achieved.

2 I see myself as a supporter of 1
breast cancer research.

3.My friends see me as a supporter 1
of breast cancer research.

4.I closely follow news of the cause 1
breast cancer research via ANY

of the following: a) on the Internet,
b) on television news or a newspaper,
or c) in person.

5.Being a supporter of breast cancer research
5
is important to me.

6.1 always display my support of 1
breast cancer research with
words or logos at school, work,
where I live, or on my clothing.

7. Breast cancer research is 1
everyone’s problem.

8. I believe that breast cancer research 1
affects too many people.

9. The impact of breast cancer research 1
extends beyond the number of people
directly affected.

165

agree

2

neither
agree or strongly
disagree disagree disagree
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
2 3 4
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5

 

 

10.It is important to me that
the goal of hurricane disaster relief
is achieved.

11.1 see myself as a supporter of
hurricane disaster relief.

12.My ﬁiends see me as a supporter
of hurricane disaster relief.

13.1 closely follow news of hurricane
disaster relief via ANY of the
following: a) on the Internet,

b) on television news or a newspaper,
or c) in person.

14.Being a supporter of hurricane
disaster relief is important to me.

15.1 always display my support of
hurricane disaster relief with
words or logos at school, work,
where I live, or on my clothing.

16.Hurricane disaster relief is
everyone’s problem.

17.1 believe that hurricane disaster relief
affects too many people.

18.The impact of hurricane disaster relief
extends beyond the number of people
directly affected.

166

 

19.It is important to me is it that
the goal of social equality in cartography
is achieved.

20.1 see myself as a supporter of
social equality in cartography.

21 .My ﬁiends see me as a supporter
of social equality in cartography.

22.1 closely follow news of social
equality in cartography via ANY
of the following: a) on the Intemet,
b) on television news or a newspaper,
or c) in person.

23.Being a supporter of social equality in
cartography is important to me.

24.1 always display my support of
social equality in cartography with
words or logos at school, work,
where I live, or on my clothing.

25.Social equality in cartography is
everyone’s problem.

26.1 believe that social equality in
cartography affects too many people.

27.The impact of social equality in
cartography extends beyond the number
of people directly affected.

167

 

 

28.It is important to me that 1 2 3 4 5
the goal of water conservation
is achieved.

29.1 see myself as a supporter of l 2 3 4 5
water conservation.

30.My ﬁiends see me as a supporter 1 2 3 4 S
of water conservation.

31.1 closely follow news of 1 2 3 4 5

water conservation via ANY of the
following: a) on the Internet,

b) on television news or a newspaper,
or c) in person.

32.Being a supporter of water conservation 1 2 3 4 5
is important to me.
33.1 always display my support of 1 2 3 4 5

water conservation with
words or logos at school, work,
where I live, or on my clothing.

34.Water conservation is l 2 3 4 5
everyone’s problem.

35.1 believe that water conservation 1 2 3 4 5
affects too many people.

36.The impact of water conservation 1 2 3 4 5
extends beyond the number of people
directly affected.

Once you have completed this ﬁrst set of questions, please take a moment to read the
press release that follows. After reading the press release, please complete the remainder
of the questionnaire.

168

 

 

 

Please take a moment to read the press release on the next page. After reading the
press release, you may complete the remainder of the questionnaire.

Help is on the way for those in need of water conservation, according to ofﬁcials
from Enrichment Bottling. Enrichment Bottling is introducing a new campaign to raise
money for water conservation

“We can help. So we will,” stated an Enrichment Bottling spokesperson. “There’s
a way for us help someone else while we go about the every day business of our
business.”

Enrichment Bottling will donate a portion of its proﬁts from the sales of the
bottled water purchased during the month of August to water conservation. In-store
displays will carry the information about the donations, and Enrichment Bottling will
soon have information about the donations on its Web site. The Enrichment spokesperson
said that the Web site will include information for individuals wanting to make their own
donations.

169

 

 

2-A.
Enrichment Bottling and Water conservation Below is a set of word pairs. Please mark
closest to the word which best reﬂects your feelings about Enrichment Bottling and Water
Conservation in the advertisement you saw.

Enrichment Bottling
good __ _ _ __ __ __ _ bad
unpleasant _ _ _ _ _ __ __ pleasant
unfavorable favorable
Water Conservation
good _ _ _ _ __ _ _ bad
unpleasant pleasant
unfavorable favorable
2-B.

Enrichment Bottling This section contains questions about Enrichment Bottling. Please read
each statement and circle the number that best reﬂects your opinion about Enrichment
Bottling.

neither
strongly agree or strongly
agree agree disagree disagree disagree

1. Enrichment Bottling 1 2 3 4 5
has a great amount of experience.
2. Enrichment Bottling l 2 3 4 5
is skilled in what they do.
3. Enrichment Bottling 1 2 3 4 5
has great expertise.
4. Enrichment Bottling 1 2 3 4 5

does not have much experience.

5. I trust Enrichment Bottling. 1 2 3 4 5

170

 

 

6. Enrichment Bottling 1
makes truthful claims.

7. Enrichment Bottling 1
is honest.

8. I do not believe what Enrichment l
Bottling tells me.

2-C.

4 5
4 5
4 5

The congruence of the alliance between Enrichment Bottling and Water Conservation.
When choosing a social cause for an alliance, corporations often support a social cause that is
considered a good ﬁt with the corporation. A good ﬁt for an alliance happens when the donating
company and the recipient of the donation are closely related.

The next set of statements are meant to measure your beliefs about the ﬁt of the relationship between a
water bottling company and water conservation. Please click on the circle closest to the word or phrase

which best reﬂects your feelings.

strongly
agree
1. The company and water conservation
are a good ﬁt. 1
2. For the company, the actions of bottling
water and water conservation 1

are consistent.

3. The water bottling company and the social
cause are compatible with each other. 1

4. A relationship between the company and
water conservation is a good match. 1

5. An alliance between the water bottling
company and water conservation is logical. 1

6. A relationship between the water bottling
company and water conservation 1
makes sense.

171

agree

neither
agree or
disagree

strongly
disagree disagree

4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5

 

 

2-D.

The alliance between Enrichment Bottling and Water Conservation Please read each
statement and circle the number of the response that best reﬂects your feelings about why
Enrichment Bottling is supporting water conservation in the press release you read.

neither
strongly agree or
agree agree disagree
l.The company supports 1 2 3
water conservation because
they care about the people affected.
2.The company does not have 1 2 3
a genuine concern for the
welfare of the people affected.
3.The company really cares I 2 3
about publicizing
water conservation to the public.
4.The company supports 1 2 3
water conservation because it will
increase proﬁts.
5.The company supports 1 2 3
water conservation to persuade me
to buy its products.
6.The company supports 1 2 3
water conservation to create a
positive public image.
7.The company beneﬁts by 1 2 3
supporting water conservation.
8.The company supports 1 2 3
water conservation because it is
the ethical thing to do.
9.The company supports 1 2 3
water conservation because it is a
lobbying tool.
10. The company supports 1 2 3

water conservation because
customers like it.

172

strongly

disagree disagree

4

5

 

,1

 

l l.Cause-related marketing is the
popular thing to do, and that’s why
the company is doing it.

12. The company likes to give
back to the community.

13. Supporting water conservation
helps the company compete
with other companies who donate to
worthy causes.

14. Supporting water conservation
earns the company free press,
and that is why the company does it.

15. The company believes it
doesn’t need to lower prices when it
uses cause-related marketing.

16. The company donates to
water conservation because other
companies donate to similar causes.

17. The company is legally
required to donate to worthy causes.

18.The company can charge higher prices
for its products when it donates to
water conservation.

19. The alliance will create higher stock
prices for the company.

173

 

Z-E.

The Alliance between Enrichment Bottling and Water Conservation Please read each
statement and circle the number of the response that best reﬂects your feelings about the
alliance between Enrichment Bottling and Water Conservation in the advertisement you saw.

neither
strongly agree or
agree agree disagree
1.] agree with the alliance between 1 2 3
the company and water conservation.
2.1 don’t have any problems with the 1 2 3
alliance between the company and
water conservation.
3.More companies should do something 1 2 3
like the alliance between

the company and water conservation.

4.The alliance between 1 2 3
the company and water conservation is a
bad idea.

5.1 reject the alliance between 1 2 3
the company and water conservation.

6.1 approve of the alliance between 1 2 3
the company and water conservation

7.1 expect a company like Enrichment 1 2 3
Bottling to support a cause like
water conservation.

8.1 am not surprised that Enrichment l 2 3
Bottling is making a donation to
water conservation.

9.1 could have predicted that a water 1 2 3
bottling company would offer help to
water conservation.

174

strongly

disagree disagree

4

5

 

2-F.

Demographics

We would like to collect some descriptive information about each participant. Please

mark the appropriate answer.

1. What is your sex? Male
Female

2. What is your age?

3. What is your race?
Please mark one or more of the following.
Asian

African-American
Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino
Native American
Other

4. What is the highest level of education you have obtained?
Grade school

High school diploma

Some college

 

College degree

Some graduate school
Graduate degree
Other

175

 

 

APPENDIX F

Questionnaire for the low congruence, high prevalence condition

176

 

l-A.
Please check closest to the word within each pair that best describes how you feel about

the following social causes. For example, if you think that breast cancer matters to you, you
might respond like this:

Matters to me X does not matter to me

E— _

Breast cancer research

 

 

good _ __ _ _ _ _ _ bad
unpleasant pleasant
unfavorable favorable
familiar unfamiliar a
Hurricane disaster relief
good _ _ _ _ _ _ _ bad
unpleasant pleasant
unfavorable favorable
familiar unfamiliar
Social equality in cartography
good __ _ _ __ _ __ __ bad
unpleasant pleasant
unfavorable favorable
familiar unfamiliar
Water conservation
good _ _ _ __ __ _ _ bad
unpleasant _ _ _ _ _ _ _ pleasant
unfavorable _ _ _ _ __ _ _ favorable
familiar . unfamiliar

177

l-B.

Some businesses provide support to social causes through donations, sponsorships and other
alliances. For the following list of social causes, please mark the circle that best indicates your
opinion about how much support these causes receive ﬁom businesses. Consider your personal
experiences having seen or not seen ads, news reports, or other communications about how wide

or substantial the support each cause receives.

strongly
agree
1.Breast cancer research is strongly
supported by the business community. 1

2.Breast cancer research is frequently part of
business promotions. 1

3.The support from the business community
for breast cancer research is highly visible. 1

4.1 can easily recall an example of the
support the business community 1
provides breast cancer research.

5. Breast cancer research is popular with 1
business.

6. Breast cancer research appears to be a
charity leader in terms of the support offered 1
by the business community.

7. Breast cancer research is widely accepted by
businesses as a cause to support. 1

3. Breast cancer research is well-liked by the
business community. 1

9.Hurricane disaster relief is strongly supported
by the business community. 1

10.Hurricane disaster relief is frequently part of

178

agree

neither

agree or strongly
disagree disagree disagree

3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 S

business promotions.

11.The support from the business community
for hunicane disaster relief is highly visible.

12.1 can easily recall an example of the
support the business community
provides hurricane disaster relief.

13. Hurricane disaster relief is popular with
business.

14. Hurricane disaster relief appears to be a
charity leader in terms of the support offered
by the business community.

15. Hurricane disaster relief is widely accepted
by businesses as a cause to support.

16. Hurricane disaster relief is well-liked by
the business community.

17.Social equality in cartography is
strongly supported by the business community.

18. Social equality in cartography is frequently
part of business promotions.

19.The support from the business community
for social equality in cartography is
highly visible.

20.1 can easily recall an example of the
support the business community
provides social equality in cartography.

21. Social equality in cartography is popular
with business.

22. Social equality in cartography appears to
be a charity leader in terms of the support
offered by the business community.

179

 

 

23. Social equality in cartography is widely
accepted by businesses as a cause to support. 1

24. Social equality in cartography is well-liked
by the business community. 1

25.Water conservation is strongly supported
by the business community. 1

26. Water conservation is frequently part of
business promotions. 1

27 .The support from the business community
for water conservation is highly visible. 1

28.1 can easily recall an example of the
support the business community 1
provides water conservation.

29. Water conservation is popular with business. 1

30. Water conservation appears to be a charity
leader in terms of the support offered by the 1
business community.

31. Water conservation is widely accepted by
businesses as a cause to support. 1

32. Water conservation is well-liked by the
business community. 1

180

l-C.

Reactions to those affected by social causes This section contains questions about your
reactions to those aﬂected by social causes. Please read each statement and circle the number
that best reﬂects your opinion about your reactions to those aﬂected by social causes.

strongly agree or strongly
agree agree disagree disagree disagree

1.When someone criticizes those 1 2 3 4 5
affected by breast cancer research,
it feels like a personal insult.

2.I am very interested in what others 1 2 3 4 5
think about those affected by

breast cancer research.

3.When I talk about those affected by 1 2 3 4 5
breast cancer research, I usually say
we rather than they.

4.The successes of those affected by 1 2 3 4 5
breast cancer research are
my successes.

5.When someone praises those affected 1 2 3 4 5
by breast cancer research, it feels like
a personal compliment.

6.If a story in the media criticized those 1 2 3 4 5
affected by breast cancer research, I
would feel embarrassed.

181

 

7. When someone criticizes those
affected by hurricane disaster relief,
it feels like a personal insult.

8.1 am very interested in what others
think about those affected by
hurricane disaster relief.

9.When I talk about those affected by
hurricane disaster relief, I usually say
we rather than they.

10.The successes of those affected by
hurricane disaster relief are
my successes.

1 1.When someone praises those affected
by hurricane disaster relief, it feels like
a personal compliment.

12.If a story in the media criticized those
affected by hurricane disaster relief, I
would feel embarrassed.

13.When someone criticizes those

affected by social equality in cartography,

it feels like a personal insult.

14.1 am very interested in what others
think about those affected by
social equality in cartography.

15.When I talk about those affected by

social equality in cartography, I usually

say we rather than they.

16.The successes of those affected by
social equality in cartography are
my successes.

182

17.When someone praises those affected 1 2 3 4 5
by social equality in cartography, it
feels like a personal compliment.

18.lf a story in the media criticized those 1 2 3 4 5
affected by social equality in cartography,
I would feel embarrassed.

l9.When someone criticizes those 1 2 3 4 5
affected by water conservation,
it feels like a personal insult.

 

20.1 am very interested in what others 1 2 3 4 5
think about those affected by
water conservation.

 

21 .When I talk about those affected by 1 2 3 4 5
water conservation, I usually say
we rather than they.

22.The successes of those affected by 1 2 3 4 5
water conservation are
my successes.

23.When someone praises those affected 1 2 3 4 S
by water conservation, it feels like
a personal compliment.

24.If a story in the media criticized those 1 2 3 4 5

affected by water conservation, I
would feel embarrassed.

183

l-D.
Social causes This section contains questions about how you feel about social causes. Please
read each statement and circle the number that best reﬂects your opinion about social causes.

neither
strongly agree or strongly
agree agree disagree disagree disagree
l.It is irnportanttome that 1 2 3 4 5
the goal of breast cancer research
is achieved.
2 I see myself as a supporter of l 2 3 4 5
breast cancer research.
3.My friends see me as a supporter 1 2 3 4 5

of breast cancer research.

4.1 closely follow news of the cause 1 2 3 4 5
breast cancer research via ANY
of the following: a) on the Internet,
b) on television news or a newspaper,
or c) in person.

5.Being a supporter of breast cancer research 1 2 3 4
is important to me.
6.1 always display my support of 1 2 3 4 5

breast cancer research with
words or logos at school, work,
where I live, or on my clothing.

7. Breast cancer research is 1 2 3 4 5
everyone’s problem.

8. I believe that breast cancer research 1 2 3 4 5
affects too many people.

9. The impact of breast cancer research 1 2 3 4 5
extends beyond the number of people
directly affected.

184

10.It is important to me that
the goal of hurricane disaster relief
is achieved.

11.I see myself as a supporter of
hurricane disaster relief.

12.My ﬁiends see me as a supporter
of hurricane disaster relief.

13.1 closely follow news of hurricane
disaster relief via ANY of the
following: a) on the Internet,

b) on television news or a newspaper,
or c) in person.

14.Being a supporter of hurricane
disaster relief is important to me.

15.1 always display my support of
hurricane disaster relief with
words or logos at school, work,
where I live, or on my clothing.

16.Hurricane disaster relief is
everyone’s problem.

17.1 believe that hurricane disaster relief
affects too many people.

18.The impact of hurricane disaster relief
extends beyond the number of people
directly affected.

185

 

l9.It is important to me that
the goal of social equality in cartography
is achieved.

20.1 see myself as a supporter of
social equality in cartography.

21 .My ﬁiends see me as a supporter
of social equality in cartography.

22.1 closely follow news of social
equality in cartography via ANY
of the following: a) on the Intemet,
b) on television news or a newspaper,
or c) in person.

23 .Being a supporter of social equality in
cartography is important to me.

24.1 always display my support of
social equality in cartography with
words or logos at school, work,
where I live, or on my clothing.

25.Social equality in cartography is
everyone’s problem.

26.1 believe that social equality in
cartography affects too many people.

27.The impact of social equality in
cartography extends beyond the number
of people directly affected.

186

 

28.It is important to me that 1 2 3 4 5
the goal of water conservation

is achieved.

29.1 see myself as a supporter of 1 2 3 4 5
water conservation.

30.My friends see me as a supporter 1 2 3 4 5
of water conservation.

31.1 closely follow news of 1 2 3 4 5

water conservation via ANY of the
following: a) on the Internet,

b) on television news or a newspaper,
or c) in person.

32.Being a supporter of water conservation 1 2 3 4 5
is important to me.
33.1 always display my support of l 2 3 4 5

water conservation with
words or logos at school, work,
where I live, or on my clothing.

34.Water conservation is 1 2 3 4 5
everyone’s problem.

35.1 believe that water conservation 1 2 3 4 5
affects too many people.

36.The impact of water conservation 1 2 3 4 5
extends beyond the number of people
directly affected.

Once you have completed this first set of questions, please take a moment to read the
press release that follows. After reading the press release, please complete the remainder
of the questionnaire.

187

 

Please take a moment to read the press release on the next page. After reading the
press release, you may complete the remainder of the questionnaire.

Help is on the way for those in need of breast cancer relief, according to ofﬁcials
from Enrichment Bottling. Enrichment Bottling is introducing a new campaign to raise
money for breast cancer relief

“We can help. So we will,” stated an Enrichment Bottling spokesperson. “There’s
a way for us help someone else while we go about the every day business of our
business.”

Enrichment Bottling will donate a portion of its proﬁts from the sales of the
bottled water purchased during the month of August to breast cancer relief. In-store
displays will carry the information about the donations, and Enrichment Bottling will
soon have information about the donations on its Web site. The Enrichment spokesperson
said that the Web site will include information for individuals wanting to make their own
donations.

 

188

2-A.
Enrichment Bottling and Breast Cancer Research Below is a set of word pairs. Please mark
closest to the word which best reﬂects your feelings about Enrichment Bottling and Breast
Cancer Research in the advertisement you saw.

Enrichment Bottling

good _ _ _ _ _ _ _ bad
unpleasant _ __ _ _ _ _ _ pleasant
unfavorable favorable

Breast Cancer Research
good __ _ __ __ _ _ _ bad
unpleasant _ _ _ _ __ _ _ pleasant
unfavorable favorable
2-B.

Enrichment Bottling This section contains questions about Enrichment Bottling. Please read
each statement and circle the number that best reﬂects your opinion about Enrichment
Bottling.

neither
strongly agree or strongly
agree agree disagree disagree disagree

1. Enrichment Bottling 1 2 3 4 5
has a great amount of experience.
2. Enrichment Bottling 1 2 3 4 5
is skilled in what they do.
3. Enrichment Bottling 1 2 3 4 5
has great expertise.
4. Enrichment Bottling 1 2 3 4 5

does not have much experience.

5. I trust Enrichment Bottling. 1 2 3 4 5

189

k

 

 

6. Enrichment Bottling 1 2 3 4 5
makes truthful claims.

7. Enrichment Bottling l 2 3 4 5
is honest.

8. I do not believe what Enrichment l 2 3 4 5
Bottling tells me.

Z'Co

The congruence of the alliance between Enrichment Bottling and Breast Cancer

Research. When choosing a social cause for an alliance, corporations often support a social cause that
is considered a good ﬁt with the corporation. A good ﬁt for an alliance happens when the donating
company and the recipient of the donation are closely related.

The next set of statements are meant to measure your beliefs about the ﬁt of the relationship between a
water bottling company and breast cancer research. Please click on the circle closest to the word or
phrase which best reﬂects your feelings.

neither
strongly agree or strongly

agree agree disagree disagree disagree

1. The company and breast cancer research
are a good ﬁt. 1 2 3 4 5

2. For the company, the actions of bottling
water and breast cancer research 1 2 3 4 5
are consistent.

3. The water bottling company and the social
cause are compatible with each other. 1 2 3 4 5

4. A relationship between the company and
breast cancer research is a good match. 1 2 3 4 5

5. An alliance between the water bottling
company and breast cancer research is logical. l 2 3 4 5

6. A relationship between the water bottling
company and breast cancer research 1 2 3 4 5
makes sense.

190

 

2-D.

The alliance between Enrichment Bottling and Breast Cancer Research Please read
each statement and circle the number of the response that best reﬂects your feelings about why
Enrichment Bottling is supporting breast cancer research in the press release you read.

neither
strongly agree or
agree agree disagree
l.The company supports 1 2 3
breast cancer research because
they care about the people affected.
2.The company does not have 1 2 3
a genuine concern for the
welfare of the people affected.
3.The company really cares I 2 3
about publicizing

breast cancer research to the public.

4. The company supports 1 2 3
breast cancer research because it will
increase proﬁts.

5.The company supports 1 2 3
breast cancer research to persuade me
to buy its products.

6.The company supports 1 2 3

breast cancer research to create a
positive public image.

7.The company beneﬁts by l 2 3
supporting breast cancer research.

8.The company supports 1 2 3
breast cancer research because it is
the ethical thing to do.

9.The company supports 1 2 3
breast cancer research because it is a
lobbying tool.

10. The company supports 1 2 3

breast cancer research because
customers like it.

191

strongly

disagree disagree

4

5

1 l.Cause-related marketing is the
popular thing to do, and that’s why
The company is doing it.

12. The company likes to give
back to the community.

13. Supporting breast cancer research
helps the company compete
with other companies who donate to
worthy causes.

14. Supporting breast cancer research
earns the company free press,
and that is why the company does it.

15. The company believes it
doesn’t need to lower prices when it
uses cause-related marketing.

16. The company donates to
breast cancer research because other
companies donate to similar causes.

17. The company is legally
required to donate to worthy causes.

18.The company can charge higher prices
for its products when it donates to
breast cancer research.

19. The alliance will create higher stock
prices for the company.

192

 

2-E.

The Alliance between Enrichment Bottling and Breast Cancer Research Please read each
statement and circle the number of the response that best reﬂects your feelings about the
alliance between Enrichment Bottling and Breast Cancer Research in the advertisement you

saw.
neither
strongly agree or
agree agree disagree
1.I agree with the alliance between 1 2 3

the company and breast cancer research.

2.] don’t have any problems with the l 2 3
alliance between the company and
breast cancer research.

3.More companies should do something 1 2 3
like the alliance between
the company and breast cancer research.

4.The alliance between the company 1 2 3
and breast cancer research is a
bad idea.

5.1 reject the alliance between 1 2 3
the company and breast cancer research.

6.1 approve of the alliance between 1 2 3
the company and breast cancer research

7.I expect a company like Enrichment l 2 3
Bottling to support a cause like
breast cancer research.

8.] am not surprised that Enrichment l 2 3
Bottling is making a donation to
breast cancer research.

9.1 could have predicted that a water 1 2 3
bottling company would offer help to
breast cancer research.

193

strongly

disagree disagree

4

S

 

 

2-F.

Demographics

We would like to collect some descriptive information about each participant. Please

mark the appropriate answer.

1. What is your sex? Male
Female

2. What is your age?

3. What is your race?
Please mark one or more of the following.
Asian

African-American
Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino
Native American
Other

4.What is the highest level of education you have obtained?

Grade school

High school diploma
Some college
College degree

Some graduate school
Graduate degree
Other

194

APPENDIX G

Questionnaire for low congruence, low prevalence condition

 

195

 

 

 

l-A.

Please check closest to the word within each pair that best describes how you feel about
the following social causes. For example, if you think that breast cancer matters to you, you

might respond like this:

Matters to me

good
unpleasant
unfavorable

familiar

good
unpleasant
unfavorable

familiar

good
unpleasant
unfavorable

familiar

good
unpleasant
unfavorable

familiar

 

 

 

Breast cancer research

Hurricane disaster relief

Social equality in cartography

Water conservation

196

does not matter to me

bad

pleasant

favorable
unfamiliar

bad
pleasant
favorable

unfamiliar

bad
pleasant
favorable

unfamiliar

bad
pleasant
favorable

unfamiliar

 

l-B.

Some businesses provide support to social causes through donations, sponsorships and other
alliances. For the following list of social causes, please mark the circle that best indicates your
opinion about how much support these causes receive ﬁom businesses. Consider your personal
experiences having seen or not seen ads, news reports, or other communications about how wide

or substantial the support each cause receives.

strongly
agree
1.Breast cancer research is strongly
supported by the business community. 1

2.Breast cancer research is frequently part of
business promotions. 1

3.The support from the business community
for breast cancer research is highly visible. 1

4.1 can easily recall an example of the
support the business community 1
provides breast cancer research.

5. Breast cancer research is popular with 1
business.

6. Breast cancer research appears to be a
charity leader in terms of the support offered 1
by the business community.

7. Breast cancer research is widely accepted by
businesses as a cause to support. 1

8. Breast cancer research is well-liked by the
business community. 1

9.Hurricane disaster relief is strongly supported
by the business community. 1

10.Hurricane disaster relief is frequently part of

197

neither
agree or strongly

agree disagree disagree disagree

2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5

 

 

business promotions.

11.The support from the business community
for hurricane disaster relief is highly visible.

12.1 can easily recall an example of the

support the business community
provides hurricane disaster relief.

13. Hurricane disaster relief is popular with
business.

14. Hurricane disaster relief appears to be a
charity leader in terms of the support offered
by the business community.

15. Hurricane disaster relief is widely accepted
by businesses as a cause to support.

16. Hurricane disaster relief is well-liked by
the business community.

l7.Social equality in cartography is
strongly supported by the business community.

18. Social equality in cartography is frequently
part of business promotions.

19.The support from the business community
for social equality in cartography is
highly visible.

20.1 can easily recall an example of the
support the business community
provides social equality in cartography.

21. Social equality in cartography is popular
with business.

22. Social equality in cartography appears to
be a charity leader in terms of the support
offered by the business community.

198

 

23. Social equality in cartography is widely
accepted by businesses as a cause to support. 1

24. Social equality in cartography is well-liked
by the business community. 1

25.Water conservation is strongly supported
by the business community. 1

26. Water conservation is frequently part of
business promotions. 1

27 .The support from the business community
for water conservation is highly visible. 1

28.1 can easily recall an example of the
support the business community 1
provides water conservation.

29. Water conservation is popular with business. 1

30. Water conservation appears to be a charity
leader in terms of the support offered by the 1
business community..

31. Water conservation is widely accepted by
businesses as a cause to support. 1

32. Water conservation is well-liked by the
business community. 1

199

 

l-C.

Reactions to those affected by social causes This section contains questions about your
reactions to those aﬁected by social causes. Please read each statement and circle the number
that best reﬂects your opinion about your reactions to those aﬁ'ected by social causes.

neither
strongly agree or strongly
agree agree disagree disagree disagree

1.When someone criticizes those 1 2 3 4 5
affected by breast cancer research,
it feels like a personal insult.

 

2.1 am very interested in what others 1 2 3 4 5
think about those affected by

breast cancer research.

3.When I talk about those affected by 1 2 3 4 5
breast cancer research, I usually say
we rather than they.

4.The successes of those affected by 1 2 3 4 5
breast cancer research are
my successes.

5.When someone praises those affected 1 2 3 4 5
by breast cancer research, it feels like
a personal compliment.

6.If a story in the media criticized those 1 2 3 4 5
affected by breast cancer research, I
would feel embarrassed.

200

7. When someone criticizes those
affected by hurricane disaster relief,
it feels like a personal insult.

8.1 am very interested in what others
think about those affected by
hurricane disaster relief.

9. When I talk about those affected by
hurricane disaster relief, I usually say
we rather than they.

10.The successes of those affected by
hurricane disaster relief are
my successes.

1 1.When someone praises those affected
by hurricane disaster relief, it feels like
a personal compliment.

12.If a story in the media criticized those
affected by hunicane disaster relief, I
would feel embarrassed.

13.When someone criticizes those

affected by social equality in cartography,

it feels like a personal insult.

14.1 am very interested in what others
think about those affected by

social equality in cartography.

15.When I talk about those affected by

social equality in cartography, I usually

say we rather than they.

16.The successes of those affected by
social equality in cartography are
my successes.

201

17.When someone praises those affected
by social equality in cartography, it
feels like a personal compliment.

l8.If a story in the media criticized those

affected by social equality in cartography,

I would feel embarrassed.

l9.When someone criticizes those
affected by water conservation,
it feels like a personal insult.

20.1 am very interested in what others
think about those affected by
water conservation.

21 .When I talk about those affected by
water conservation, I usually say
we rather than they.

22.The successes of those affected by
water conservation are
my successes.

23.When someone praises those affected
by water conservation, it feels like
a personal compliment.

24.If a story in the media criticized those

affected by water conservation, I
would feel embarrassed.

l

l

1

202

l-D.
Social causes This section contains questions about how you feel about social causes. Please
read each statement and circle the number that best reﬂects your opinion about social causes.

neither
strongly agree or strongly
agree agree disagree disagree disagree
l.It is irnportarrttome that 1 2 3 4 5
the goal of breast cancer research
is achieved.
2 I see myself as a supporter of 1 2 3 4 5
breast cancer research.
3.My friends see me as a supporter 1 2 3 4 5
of breast cancer research.
4.1 closely follow news of the cause 1 2 3 4 5

breast cancer research via ANY

of the following: a) on the Intemet,
b) on television news or a newspaper,
or c) in person.

5.Being a supporter of breast cancer 1 2 3 4 5
research is important to me.

6.1 always display my support of 1 2 3 4 5
breast cancer research with
words or logos at school, work,
where I live, or on my clothing.

7. Breast cancer research is 1 2 3 4 5
everyone’s problem.

8. I believe that breast cancer research 1 2 3 4 5
affects too many people.

9. The impact of breast cancer research 1 2 3 4 5
extends beyond the number of people
directly affected.

203

10.It is important to me that
the goal of hurricane disaster relief
is achieved.

1 1.1 see myself as a supporter of
hurricane disaster relief.

12.My ﬁiends see me as a supporter
of hurricane disaster relief.

13.] closely follow news of hurricane
disaster relief via ANY of the
following: a) on the Internet,

b) on television news or a newspaper,
or c) in person.

14.Being a supporter of hurricane
disaster relief is important to me.

15.1 always display my support of
hurricane disaster relief with
words or logos at school, work,
where I live, or on my clothing.

16.Hurricane disaster relief is
everyone’s problem.

17.1 believe that hurricane disaster relief
affects too many people.

18.The impact of hurricane disaster relief
extends beyond the number of people
directly affected.

204

19.It is important to me that
the goal of social equality in cartography
is achieved.

20.1 see myself as a supporter of
social equality in cartography.

21 .My friends see me as a supporter
of social equality in cartography.

22.1 closely follow news of social
equality in cartography via ANY
of the following: a) on the Internet,
b) on television news or a newspaper,
or c) in person.

23.Being a supporter of social equality in
cartography is important to me.

24.1 always display my support of
social equality in cartography with
words or logos at school, work,
where I live, or on my clothing.

25.Social equality in cartography is
everyone’s problem.

26.1 believe that social equality in
cartography affects too many people.

27.The impact of social equality in
cartography extends beyond the number
of people directly affected.

205

28.It is important to me that l 2 3 4 5
the goal of water conservation

is achieved.

29.1 see myself as a supporter of 1 2 3 4 5
water conservation.

30.My friends see me as a supporter 1 2 3 4 5
of water conservation.

3 l .I closely follow news of 1 2 3 4 5

water conservation via ANY of the
following: a) on the Internet,
b) on television news or a newspaper,

or c) in person.

32.Being a supporter of water conservation 1 2 3 4 5
is important to me.

33.I always display my support of 1 2 3 4 5

water conservation with
words or logos at school, work,
where I live, or on my clothing.

34.Water conservation is 1 2 3 4 5
everyone’s problem.

35.1 believe that water conservation 1 2 3 4 5
affects too many people.

36.The impact of water conservation 1 2 3 4 5
extends beyond the number of people
directly affected.

Once you have completed this ﬁrst set of questions, please take a moment to read the
press release that follows. After reading the press release, please complete the remainder
of the questionnaire.

206

Please take a moment to read the press release on the next page. After reading the
press release, you may complete the remainder of the questionnaire.

Help is on the way for those in need of social equality in cartography, according
to ofﬁcials from Enrichment Bottling. Enrichment Bottling is introducing a new
campaign to raise money for social equality in cartography

“We can help. So we will,” stated an Enrichment Bottling spokesperson. “There’s
a way for us help someone else while we go about the every day business of our
business.”

Enrichment Bottling will donate a portion of its proﬁts ﬁom the sales of the
bottled water purchased during the month of August to social equality in cartography. In-
store displays will carry the information about the donations, and Enrichment Bottling
will soon have information about the donations on its Web site. The Enrichment
spokesperson said that the Web site will include information for individuals wanting to
make their own donations.

207

Z'A.
Enrichment Bottling and Social Equality in Cartography Below is a set of word pairs.
Please mark closest to the word which best reﬂects your feelings about Enrichment Bottling
and Water Conservation in the advertisement you saw.

Enrichment Bottling

good _ _ _ _ _ _ _ bad
unpleasant pleasant
unfavorable favorable

Social Equality in Cartography
good __ _ _ _ _ _ _ bad
unpleasant _ _ _ _ _ _ __ pleasant
unfavorable favorable
2-B.

Enrichment Bottling This section contains questions about Enrichment Bottling. Please read
each statement and circle the number that best reﬂects your opinion about Enrichment
Bottling.

neither
strongly agree or strongly
agree agree disagree disagree disagree

1. Enrichment Bottling 1 2 3 4 5
has a great amount of experience.
2. Enrichment Bottling 1 2 3 4 5
is skilled in what they do.
3. Enrichment Bottling 1 2 3 4 5
has great expertise.
4. Enrichment Bottling 1 2 3 4 5

does not have much experience.

5. I trust Enrichment Bottling. 1 2 3 4 S

208

 

6. Enrichment Bottling
makes truthful claims.

7. Enrichment Bottling
is honest.

8. I do not believe what Enrichment
Bottling tells me.

2-C.

2 3 4 S
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5

The congruence of the alliance between Enrichment Bottling and Social Equality in
Cartography. When choosing a social cause for an alliance, corporations often support a social cause
that is considered a good ﬁt with the corporation. A good ﬁt for an alliance happens when the donating
company and the recipient of the donation are closely related.

The next set of statements are meant to measure your beliefs about the ﬁt of the relationship between a
water bottling company and social equality in cartography. Please click on the circle closest to the word

or phrase which best reﬂects your feelings.

strongly
agree

1. The company and social equality in
cartography are a good ﬁt.

2. For the company, the actions of bottling
water and social equality in cartography
are consistent.

3. The water bottling company and the social
cause are compatible with each other.

4. A relationship between the company and

social equality in cartography is a good match.

5. An alliance between the water bottling
company and social equality in cartography is
logical.

6. A relationship between the water bottling
company and social equality in cartography
makes sense.

209

neither
agree or strongly
agree disagree disagree disagree

2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5

2-D.

The alliance between Enrichment Bottling and Social Equality in Cartography Please
read each statement and circle the number of the response that best reﬂects your feelings about
why Enrichment Bottling is supporting Social Equality in Cartography in the press release

you read.
neither
strongly agree or
agree agree disagree
1.Enrichment Bottling supports 1 2 3
social equality in cartography because
they care about the people affected.
2.Bnrichment Bottling does not have 1 2 3
a genuine concern for the
welfare of the people affected.
3.Enrichment Bottling really cares I 2 3
about publicizing
social equality in cartography to
the public.
4.Enrichment Bottling supports 1 2 3

social equality in cartography because
it will increase proﬁts.

5.Bnrichment Bottling supports 1 2 3
social equality in cartography to
persuade me to buy its products.

6.Enrichment Bottling supports 1 2 3
social equality in cartography to create a
positive public image.

7.Enrichment Bottling beneﬁts by 1 2 3
supporting social equality in cartography.

8.Enrichment Bottling supports 1 2 3
social equality in cartography because
it is the ethical thing to do.

9.Enrichment Bottling supports 1 2 3
social equality in cartography because
it is a lobbying tool.

10. Enrichment Bottling supports 1 2 3
social equality in cartography because

210

strongly

disagree disagree
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5

 

customers like it.

1 l.Cause-related marketing is the 1
popular thing to do, and that’s why
Enrichment Bottling is doing it.

12. Enrichment Bottling likes to give 1
back to the community.

13.Supporting social equality in l

cartography helps Enrichment Bottling
compete with other companies who donate
to worthy causes.

14. Supporting social equality in 1
cartography earns Enrichment Bottling
free press, and that is why Enrichment
Bottling does it.

15. Enrichment Bottling believes it 1
doesn’t need to lower prices when it
uses cause-related marketing.

16. Enrichment Bottling donates to 1
social equality in cartography because
other companies donate to similar causes.

_

17. Enrichment Bottling is legally
required to donate to worthy causes.

l8.Enrichment Bottling can charge 1
higher prices for its products when
it donates to social equality in cartography.

19. The alliance will create higher stock 1
prices for Enrichment Bottling.

211

Z'Eo

The Alliance between Enrichment Bottling and Social equality in cartography Please read
each statement and circle the number of the response that best reﬂects your feelings about the
alliance between Enrichment Bottling and Water Conservation in the advertisement you saw.

neither
strongly agree or
agree agree disagree

1.1 agree with the alliance between 1 2 3
Enrichment Bottling and social equality in
cartography.

2.1 don’t have any problems with the l 2 3
alliance between Enrichment Bottling and
social equality in cartography.

3.More companies should do something 1 2 3

like the alliance between
Enrichment Bottling and social equality in
cartography.

4.The alliance between 1 2 3
Enrichment Bottling and social equality in
cartography is a bad idea.

5.1 reject the alliance between 1 2 3
Enrichment Bottling and social equality
in cartography.

6.1 approve of the alliance between 1 2 3
Enrichment Bottling and social equality
in cartography.

7.1 expect a company like Erlichment 1 2 3
Bottling to support a cause like
social equality in cartography.

8.1 am not surprised that Enrichment l 2 3
Bottling is making a donation to
social equality in cartography.

9.1 could have predicted that a water 1 2 3
bottling company would offer help to
social equality in cartography.

212

strongly

disagree disagree

4

5

2-F.

Demographics

We would like to collect some descriptive information about each participant. Please

mark the appropriate answer.

1. What is your sex? Male
Female

2. What is your age?

3. What is your race?
Please mark one or more of the following.
Asian

African-American
Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino
Native American

Other

4.What is the highest level of education you have obtained?
Grade school

High school diploma

Some college

 

College degree

Some graduate school
Graduate degree
Other

213

References

2004 Manufacturer and Retailer Cause Marketing Attitudes and Practices Study.
http://www.causemarketingforum.com, Retrieved June 30, 2004.

Aaker, David A. and Kevin Lane Keller (1990), “Consumer Evaluations of Brand
Extensions,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (Jan) 27-41.

“Analysis of Variance,” (2001), Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10 (1 & 2), 5-35.

Andreason, Alan R. (1996), “Proﬁt for Nonproﬁts: Find a Corporate Partner,” Harvard
Business Review, Nov.-Dec., 47-59.

Andrews, J. Craig and Srinivas Durvasula (1991), “Suggestions for Manipulating and
Measuring Involvement in Advertising Message Content,” Advances in Consumer
Research, 18, 194-201.

Barnes, Nora Ganim and Debra J. Fitzgibbons (1991), “Is Cause-Related Marketing in
Your Future?” Business Forum, Fall, 20-23.

Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable
Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and
Statistical Considerations,” Journal for Personality and Social Psychology, 51
(6), 1173-1182.

Barone, Michael J ., Anthony D. Miyazaki and Kimberly A. Taylor (2000), “The
Inﬂuence of Cause-related Marketing on Consumer Choice: Does One Good Turn
Deserve Another?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 248-
262.

Basil, Debra Z. and Paul M. Herr (2003), “Dangerous Donations? The Effects of Cause-
Related Marketing on Charity Attitude,” Journal of Nonproﬁt and Public Sector
Marketing, 11 (1), 59-76.

Becker-Olsen, Karen and Carolyn J. Simmons (2002) “When Do Social Sponsorship
Enhance or Dilute Equity? Fit, Message Source, and the Persistence of Effects,”
in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 29, Susan M. Broniarczyk and Kent
Nakamoto, eds., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 287-2891

Berger, Ida E., Peggy H. Cunningham and Minette E. Drumwright (2004), “Social

Alliances: Company/Nonproﬁt Collaboration,” California Management Review,
47(1), 58-90.

214

 

Berger, Ida E., Peggy H. Cunningham and Robert V. Kozinets (1999), “Consumer
Persuasion Through Cause-Related Advertising,” Advances in Consumer
Research, 26, 491-497.

Bhattacharya, C. B., Hayagreeva Rao, and Mary Ann Glynn (1995), “Understanding the
Bond of Identiﬁcation: An Investigation of Its Correlates Among Art museum
Members,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (4), 46-57.

Bhattacharya, C. B. and Sankar Sen (2003), “Consumer-Company Identiﬁcation: A
Framework for Understanding Consumers’ Relationships with Companies,”
Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76-88.

Broderick, Anne, Amandeep Jogi and Tony Garry (2003), “Tickled Pink: The Personal
Meaning of Cause Related Marketing for Customer,” Journal of Marketing
Management 19, 583-610.

Brown, Tom J. and Peter A. Dacin (1997), “The Company and the Product: Corporate
Associations and Consumer Product Responses,” Journal of Marketing, 61 (Jan),
68-84.

Ceasar, Patricia (2001), “Cause-Related Marketing: The New Face of Corporate
Philanthropy,” Business and Society Review, 15-19.

Chaney, Isabella and Nitha Dolli (2001), “Cause-Related Marketing in New Zealand,”
International Journal of Nonproﬁt and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 6(2), 145-
163.

Cobb, Roger W. and Charles D. Elder (1972), Participation in American Politics: The
Dynamics of Agenda-Building, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Cone, Carol (1999). “So What’s Your Cause?” Discount Store News, 38, 8.

Comwell, T. Bettina and Isabella Maignan (1998), “An International Review of
Sponsorship Research,” Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 1-21.

Comwell, T. Bettina, Stephen W. Pruitt and Robert Van Ness (2001), “The Value of
Winning in Motorsports: Sponsorship-linked Marketing,” Journal of Advertising
41(1), 17-33.

Comwell, T. Bettina, Michael S. Humphreys, Angie Maguire and Cassandra L. T ellegen
(2003), “The Role of Articulation in Sponsorship-linked Marketing,” in
Proceedings of the 2003 Advertising nad Consumer Psychology Conference,
Lynn R. Kahle and Chung-Hyun Kim,. eds., Seoul: Society for Consumer
Psychology, 8-9.

215

 

Comwell, T. Bettina, Clinton S. Weeks and Donald P. Roy (2005), “Sponsorship-Linked
Marketing: Opening the Black Box,” Journal of Advertising 34(2), 21-42.

Cui, Yanli, Elizabeth S. Trent, Pauline M. Sullivan and Grace N. Matiru (2003), “Cause-
Related Marketing: How Generation Y Responds,” Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, 31(6), 310-320.

Dahl, Darren W. and Anne M. Lavack (1995), “Cause-Related Marketing: Impact of
Size of Corporate Donation and Size of Cause-Related Promotion on Consumer
Perceptions and Participation,” in 1995 American Marketing Association Winter
Educators ’ Conference: Marketing Theory and Applications, David W. Stewart
and Naufel J. Vilcassim, eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 476-
481.

Dean, Dwane Hal (2004), “Consumer Perception of Corporate Donations: Effects of
Company Reputation for Social Responsibility and Type of Donation,” Journal of
Advertising, 32 (4), 91-102.

Desphande, Sameer and Jacqueline C. Hitchon (2002), “Cause-Related Marketing Ads in
the Light of Negative News,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 79
(4), 905-926.

Drumwright, Minette E. (1996), “Company Advertising With a Social Dimension: The
Role of Noneconomic Criteria,” Journal of Marketing, 60, 71-87.

Eagly, Alice H. and Shelly Chaiken (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Orlando, FL:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Eagly, Alice H. and Maureen, Crowley (1986), “Gender and Helping Behavior: A Meta-
Analytic Review of Social Psychological Literature,” Psychological Bulletin, 100,
283-308.

Ellen, Pam Scholder, Lois A. Mohr and Deborah J. Webb (2000), “Charitable Programs
and the Retailer: Do They Mix?” Journal of Retailing, 76(3), 393-406.

File, Karen Maru and Russ Alan Prince (1998), “Cause Related Marketing and Corporate
Philanthropy in the Privately Held Enterprise,” Journal of Business Ethics, 17,
1529-1539.

Fox, Karen RA. and Philip Koter (1980), “The Marketing of Social Cause: The First 10
Years,” Journal of Marketing 44 (4) 24-.

Friedstad, Marian and Peter Wright (1994), “The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How

People Cope with Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21
(June), 1-31.

216

 

F undacio Empresa y Sociedad (1997), La Estrategia de Social de le Empresa. Un
enfoque de valor, Madrid, Spain: Fundacio Empresa y Sociedad

Garcia, Inaki, Juan J. Gibaja and Alazrre Mujika (2003), “A Study on the Effect of Cause-
Rclated Marketing on the Attitude Towards the Brand: The Case of Pepsi in
Spain,” Journal of Nonproﬁt and Public Sector Marketing, 1 1(1), 1 1 1-135.

Gwinner, Kevin (1997), “A Model of Image Creation and Image Transfer in Event
Sponsorship,” International Marketing Review, 14(3), 145-158.

Gourville, John T. and V. Kasturi Rangan (2004), “Valuing the Cause Marketing
Relationship,” California Management Review, 47 (1), 38-57.

Gupta, Shruti and Julie Pirsch (2006), “The Company-Cause-Customer Fit Decision in
Cause-Related Marketing,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23 (6), 314-326.

Hajjat, Mahmood M. (2003), “Effect of Cause-Related Marketing on Attitudes and
Purchase Intentions: The Moderating Role of Cause Involvement and Donations
Size,” Journal of Nonproﬁt and Public Sector Marketing, 11(1), 93-109.

Hastie, Reid (1984), “Causes and Effects of Causal Attribution,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 46 (January), 44-56.

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2005 Update, http://www.americanheart.org,
Retrieved June 30, 2005.

Heider, Fritz (1946), “Attitudes and Cognitive Organizations,” Journal of Personality, 1,
107-112.

Holmes, John H. and Christopher J. Kilbane (1993), “Cause-Related Marketing: Selected
Effects of Price and Charitable Donations,” Journal of Nonproﬁt & Public Sector
Marketing, [(4) 67-83.

“If you’re not committed, don’t bother,” (1994), American Demographics, December 16-
l 7.

Kamins, Michael and Kamal Gupta (1994), “Congruence Between Spokesperson and
Product Type: A Matchup Hypothesis Perspective,” Psychology and Marketing,
11(6), 569-586.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss (1999), “From Spare Change to Real Change: The Social Sector
as Beta Site for Business Innovation,” Harvard Business Review, May-June, 122-
132.

Keller, Kevin Lane and David A. Aaker (1992), “The Effect of Sequential Introduction of
Brand Extensions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (February), 35-50.

217

Kelly, Harold H. (1972), Casual Schemata and the Attribution Process,” in Attribution:
Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, Edward E. Jones et al., eds. Morristown, NJ:
General Learning Press, 151-174.

Lafferty, Barbara A., Ronald E. Goldsmith and G. Tomas M. Hult (2004), “The Impact of
the Alliance on the Partners: A Look at Cause-Brand Alliances,” Psychology and
Marketing 21(7), 509-531.

Lavack, Anne M. and Fredric Kropp (2003), “Consumer Values and Attitude Toward
Cause-Related Marketing: A Cross-Cultural Comparison,” Advances in Consumer
Research, 30, 377-378.

Lichtenstein, Donald R., Minette E. Drumwright and Bridgette M. Braig (2004), “The
Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Donations to Corporate-
Supported Nonproﬁts,” Journal of Marketing, 68, 16-32.

Ligos, Melissa (1999), “Mall Rats with a Social Conscience,” Sales and Marketing
Management, 151 (11), 115.

MacKenzie, Scott B. and Richard J. Lutz (1989), “An Empirical Examination of the
Structural Antecedes of Attitudes Toward the Ad in an Advertising Protesting
Context,” Journal of Marketing, 53, (April), 48-65.

McDaniel, Stephen R. (1999), “An Investigation of Match-Up Effects in Sports
Sponsorship Advertising: The Implications of Consumer Advertising Schemas,”
Psychology & Marketing 16(2), 163-186.

McDaniel, Stephen R and Lance Kinney (1998), “The Implications of Recency and
Gender Effects in Consumer Response to Ambush Marketing,” Psychoon &
Marketing 15(4), 385-405.

Meenaghan, Tony (1994), “Ambush Marketing: Immoral or Imaginative Practice?”
Journal of Advertising Research, 77-88.

Meyer, Harvey (1999), “When the Cause is Just,” Journal of Business Strategy, Nov.-
Dec., 27-31.

Mishra, Sanjay, U.N. Umesh and Donald E. Stem, Jr. (1993), “Antecedents of the
Attraction Effect: An Information-Processing Approach,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 30 (August), 331-49.

Mizerski, Dick, Katherine Mizerski and Orin Sandler (2001), “A Field Experiment
Comparing the Effectiveness of “Ambush” and Cause Related Ad Appeals for
Social Marketing Causes,” Journal of Nonproﬁt and Public Sector Marketing,
9(4), 25-45.

218

 

Moore, David J ., John C. Mowen, and Richard Reardon (1994), “Multiple Sources in
Advertising Appeals : When Product Endorsers Are Paid by the Advertising
Sponsor,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (3), 234-243.

Newell, Stephen J. and Ronald E. Goldsmith (2001), “The Development of a Scale to
Measure Perceived Corporate Credibility”, Journal of Business Research, 52,
235-247.

Nowak, Linda I. and T.K. Clarke (2003), “Cause-Related Marketing: Keys to Successful
Relationships with Corporate Sponsors and Their Customers,” Journal of
Nonproﬁt and Public Sector Marketing, 11 (1), 137-149.

Olsen, G. Douglas, John W. Pracejus and Norman R. Brown (2003), “When Proﬁt Equals
Price: Consumer Confusion About Donation Amounts in Cause-Related
Marketing,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 22 (2), 170-180.

Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1981), Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and
Contemporary Approaches, Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.

Polonksy, Michael Jay and McDonald (2000), “Exploring the Link Between Cause-
Related Marketing and Brand Building,” International Journal of Nonproﬁt and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 5 (1), 46-57.

Polonsky, Michael Jay and Richard Speed (2001), “Linking Sponsorship and Cause-
Related Marketing,” European Journal of Marketing, 35 (l 1/ 12), 1361-1384.

Polonsky, Michael Jay and Greg Wood (2001), “Can Overcommercialization of Cause-
Related Marketing Harm Society?” Journal of Macromarketing, 21 (1), 8-22.

Porter, Michael and Mark R. Kramer (2002), “The Competitive Advantage of Corporate
Philanthropy,” Harvard Business Review, December 57-68.

Pracejus, John W. and G. Douglas Olsen (2004), “The Role of Brand/Cause Fit in the
Effectiveness of Cause-Related Marketing Campaigns,” Journal of Business
Research, 57, 635-640.

Pracejus, John W., G. Douglas Olsen and Norman R. Brown (2003), “On the Prevalence
and Impact of Vague Quantiﬁers in the Advertising of Cause-Related Marketing
(CRM),” Journal of Advertising, 32 (4), 19-28.

Rexrode, Christina (2006), “In the Market for a Good Cause,” St. Petersburg Times, Nov.
23, 1D.

Rifon, Nora J ., Sejung Marina Choi, Carrie S. Trimble and Hairong Li (2004),
“Congruence Effects in Sponsorship: The Mediating Role of Sponsor Credibility
and Consumer Attributions of Corporate Motive,” Journal of Advertising, 33(1),
29-42.

219

 

Ross, John K. 111, Larry T. Patterson and Mary Ann Stutts (1992), “Consumer
Perceptions of Organizations That Use Case-Related Marketing,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 20(1), 93-97.

Ross, John K. 111, Mary Ann Stutts and Larry T. Patterson (1990), “Tactical
Considerations for the Effective Use of Cause-Related Marketing,” The Journal
of Applied Business Research, 7 (2), 58-65.

Rothschild, Michael L. (1999), “Carrots, Sticks and Promises: A Conceptual Framework
for the Management of Public Health and Social Issues Behaviors,” Journal of
Marketing, 63 (4), 24-37.

Roy, J. (195 8), “Step Down Procedure in Multivariate Analysis,” Annals of Mathematical
Statistics, 29 (December), 1177-1187.

Sandler, Dennis M. and David Shani (1989), “Olympic Sponsorship vs. ‘Ambush
Marketing’: Who Gets the Gold,” Journal of Advertising Research 29 (4), 9-14.

Shoebridge, Neil (1997), “Dangerous Games for Outsiders,” Business Review Weekly,
19(22), 91.

Simonin, Bernard L. and Julie A. Ruth (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 (Feb), 30-42.

Smith, N. Craig (2003), “Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether or How?” California
Management Review 45(4), 52-76.

Smith, Warren and Matthew Higgins (2000), “Cause-Related Marketing: Ethics and the
Ecstatic,” Business and Society, 39 (3), 304-322.

Smith, Geoffrey and Ron Stodghill II (1994), “Are Good Causes Good Marketing?”
Business Week, 3363, 64-65

Sparkman, Richard M., Jr. (1982), “The Discounting Principle, in the Perception of
Advertising,” in Advances in Consumer Research, vol 9, Andrew Mitchell, ed.
Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 277-280.

Strahilevitz, Michal (1999), “The Effects of Product Type and Donation Magnitude on
Willingness to Pay More for a Charity-Linked Brand,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 8(3), 215-241.

--- (2003), “The Effects of Prior Impression 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 and Public Sector Marketing, 11 (1), 77-92.

220

 

Strahilevitz, Michal and John G. Myers (1998), “Donations to Charity as Purchase
Incentives: How Well They Work May Depend on What You Are Trying to Sell,”
Journal of Consumer Research 24 (Mar), 434-446.

Subrahmanyan, Saroja (2004), “Effect of Price Premium and Product Type on the Choice
of Cause-Related Brands: A Singapore Perspective,” Journal of Product and
Brand Management, 13 (2/3), 116-124.

Talcott, Sasha (2005), “Bank of America gets MBNA: $35b deal to create biggest credit
card issuer in US,” The Boston Globe, July 1. Retrieved from:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/07/0l/bank_of_arnerica_gets_mbn
a/ on Nov. 11, 2006.

Taylor, Shelley E., and Jennifer Crocker (1981), “Schematic Bases of Social Information
Processing,” In Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium on Personality and
Social Psychology, vol. 1, E. Tory Higgins,'C. Peter Herman, and Mark P. Zanna,
eds., I-Iillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 89-134.

Till, Brian D. and Linda I. Nowak (2000), “Toward Effective Use of Cause-Related
Marketing Alliances,” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9 (7), 472-
484.

Torn, Gail (2004), “The Endowment-Institutional Afﬁnity Effect,” The Journal of
Psychology, 13 8(2), 160-1 70.

Trimble, Carrie and Nora J. Rifon (2006), “Effects of Consumer Perceptions of Match in
Cause-Related Marketing Message,” International Journal of Nonproﬁt &
Voluntary Sector Marketing (11) 1, 29-47.

Van den Brink, Douwe, Gaby Odekerken-Schroder and Pieter Pauwels (2006), “The
Effect of Strategic and Tactical Cause-related Marketing on Consumer Brand
Loyalty,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(1), 15-25.

Varadarajan, P. Rajan and Anil Menon (1988), “Cause-related Marketing: A
Coalignment of Marketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy,” Journal of
Marketing 52 (July). 58-74.

Wamr, Daniel L. and Nyla R. Branscombe (1993), “Sports Fans: Measuring Degree of
Identiﬁcation with Their Team,” International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24,
1-17.

Webb, Deborah J. and Lois A. Mohr (1999), “A Typology of Consumer Responses to

Cause-Related Marketing: From Skeptics to Socially Concerned,” Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing, 17(2), 226-238.

221

 

Yechiam, Eldad, Greg Barron, Ido Erev and Miriam Erez (2003), “On the Robustness
and the Direction of the Effect of Cause-Related Marketing,” Journal of
Consumer Behavior, 2(4), 320-332.

222

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

nuﬂwttwuswritttuuytwu