Sie sind auf Seite 1von 15

Tugging on Heartstrings: Shopping Orientation, Mindset, and Consumer Responses to

Cause-Related Marketing
Author(s): Chun-Tuan Chang and Zhao-Hong Cheng
Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 127, No. 2 (March 2015), pp. 337-350
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24702806
Accessed: 19-08-2019 03:35 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Business Ethics

This content downloaded from 202.65.184.143 on Mon, 19 Aug 2019 03:35:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Ethics (2015) 127:337-350
DOI 10.1007/sl0551-014-2048-4

Tugging on Heartstrings: Shopping Orientation, Mindset,


and Consumer Responses to Cause-Related Marketing

Chun-Tuan Chang • Zhao-Hong Cheng

Received: 20 October 2013/Accepted: 2 January 2014/Published online: 16 January 2014


© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Donating money to a charity based on con their products with a range of popular causes related to
sumer purchase is referred to as cause-related marketingsocial and ecological issues. The partnership between a
(CRM). In this research, we profile consumer psycho product and a cause is referred to as cause-related mar
graphics for skepticism toward advertising in a CRM keting (CRM) (Varadarajan and Menon 1988). Donating
context. To be specific, this study investigates whethermoney
and to a charity based on consumer purchase has
how psychological antecedents (i.e., consumer shopping become a major corporate philanthropic trend. To con
orientation and mindset) and gender differences influence
sumers, they can make consumption decisions that simul
consumer skepticism toward advertising. An empirical
taneously benefit themselves and the society (Kim and
study was conducted with 291 participants. Structural
Johnson 2013). The first high-profile CRM promotion
equation modeling was employed for hypothesis testing.
started in 1983 when American Express agreed to donate
The results suggest that a utilitarian orientation and
onean
cent from every purchase made with its card to the
individualistic mindset are positively related to skepticism
fund for the restoration of the Statue of Liberty. Purchasing
toward advertising, while a hedonic orientation and a acol
product with a cause provides consumers with the feeling
lectivistic mindset are negatively related to skepticism
that they can "make a difference in the world" and "makes
toward advertising. Gender differences are also foundphilanthropy
in simple and convenient" (Eikenberry 2009
the aforementioned relationships. The segmentational
pp 52-53). CRM has become an effective tool to increase
approach of gender and psychographics can assist mar
sales (Strahilevitz 1999; Strahilevitz and Myers 1998;
Varadarajan and Menon 1988), enhance brand image
keters to explain consumer attitudes toward CRM and then
to communicate with those CRM advocates better. (Berger et al. 1999; Br0nn and Vrioni 2001; Brown and
Dacin 1997; Gupta and Pirsch 2006; Nan and Heo 2007;
Keywords Cause-related marketing • Consumer Ross et al. 1992), and increase positive word of mouth
skepticism toward advertising • Shopping orientation (Thomas et al. 2011).
Mindset • Gender Research has addressed the ethical aspects of CRM
advertising (Ross et al. 1992). One of the potential back
lashes that a marketer might endure is that consumers
Introduction sometimes view an ad campaign as ethically doubtful
(Barone et al. 2000). Anecdotal evidence suggests skepti
Increasing public concern over social and environmentalcism toward advertising. For example, some CRM ads are
matters has caused many companies to begin affiliatingperceived as manipulative "gimmicks" which use the non
profit's constituency to sell higher-priced or lower-quality
products to consumers (Barone et al. 2000). Some con
C.-T. Chang (El) • Z.-H. Cheng sumers even express the desire to keep their charitable
Department of Business Management, National Sun Yat-sen
giving separate from their purchases because the latter
University, No. 70, Lianhai Rd, Gushan District,
Kao-hsiung 804, Taiwan primarily supports corporations (Webb and Möhr 1998).
e-mail: ctchang@faculty.nsysu.edu.tw Certain buyers perceive a low level of fit between the

<£] Springer

This content downloaded from 202.65.184.143 on Mon, 19 Aug 2019 03:35:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
338 C-T. Chang, Z-H. Cheng

product and the supported cause. For example, KFC's taking gender differences in such relationships into con
support of the Breast Cancer Research Foundation creates a sideration. In the following section, a series of hypotheses
disconnected relationship between the cause and the are proposed based on an extensive review of the relevant
product, which, according to New York-based public literature in the fields of social psychology, communica
relations firm MSLGROUP, leaves consumers skeptical tion, marketing, and consumer behavior.
and less likely to participate (Irwin 2011). Researchers
agree that advertising effectiveness is impacted by con
sumer skepticism toward the ads, which leads to unfavor Conceptual Background and Hypotheses
able attitudes toward the firms that participate in CRM
(Singh et al. 2009). Consumer Skepticism Toward Advertising
Although the previous studies have emphasized the
important impact of consumer skepticism on consumer Skepticism toward advertising is defined as a consumer's
attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Barone et al. 2000; Barone tendency to distrust a company's advertising claims
et al. 2007; Ellen et al. 2006) and have suggested insightful (Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998). Mohr et al. (1998)
practical implications for corporations, little effort has been further argued that skepticism provided consumers pro
made to profile consumer psychographics for skepticism tections against cheating and misleading advertising
toward advertising in a CRM context. Investigation of claims. In the CRM context, skepticism plays a critical role
consumer psychographics on skepticism toward CRM in affecting consumer responses to CRM including evalu
advertising can help marketers to understand who are prone ations (Anuar and Mohamad 2012; Webb and Möhr 1998),
to be skeptical about the CRM and then less likely to attitudes toward the brand (Chen and Leu 2011), and pur
support such campaigns. Consumer skepticism toward chase intentions (Barone et al. 2000; Gupta and Pirsch
advertising has been explained in terms of psychological 2006). Scholars commonly agree that consumer skepticism
traits including self-esteem (Boush et al. 1994; Obermiller toward cause claims made in CRM campaigns is related to
and Spangenberg 1998; Tien and Phau 2010), perceived the perception of the company's motives for participating
intrusiveness/irritation (Morimoto and Chang 2009), cyni in the social cause (e.g., Barone et al. 2000; Cui et al. 2003;
cism (Mohr et al. 1998; Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998; Webb and Mohr 1998). Cui et al. (2003) distinguished
Tan and Tan 2007; Tien and Phau 2010), susceptibility to between extrinsic motives for conducting CRM (e.g., to
peer influence (Mangleburg and Bristol 1998; Thakor and increase profits or enhance the brand's reputation) and
Goneau-Lessard 2009), involvement (Rizvi et al. 2012), intrinsic motives (e.g., concern about the social cause). An
marketplace knowledge (Tien and Phau 2010), and envi extrinsic motive may be linked to greater consumer skep
ronmental concern (do Paço and Reis 2012). The previous ticism because the company's motive for conducting such a
research has found that certain psychological traits could campaign is self-interest. In contrast to the extrinsic
make a person less vulnerable to or more skeptical of ad motive, an intrinsic motive is perceived as altruistic or
claims (e.g., Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998; Tan and other interested and is more likely to be viewed with a low
Tan 2007). level of skepticism.
In this current study, new psychological traits including The previous research has examined marketing variables
consumer shopping orientation (hedonic vs. utilitarian) and that influence consumer skepticism toward CRM adver
mindset (individualistic vs. collectivistic) were selected as tising (e.g., Barone et al. 2000; Elving 2012; Kim and Lee
antecedents because these traits were related to personal 2009; Singh et al. 2009; Webb and Möhr 1998). To our
motives and might lead to different purchase behaviors. knowledge, little research has examined the impacts of
Furthermore, gender differences have been found not only consumer psychographic characteristics on consumer
in the chosen psychological traits (Kashima et al. 1995; skepticism toward CRM advertising. The following sec
Seock and Bailey 2008) but also in consumer skepticism tions discuss the influences of consumer shopping orien
toward advertising (Diehl et al. 2010; Moscardelli and tation and mindset.

Liston-Heyes 2005), advertising effectiveness (Smith and


Stutts 2006), and consumer purchase behavior (O'Guinn Consumer Shopping Orientation: Hedonism
and Faber 1989). This article contributes to these evolving and Utilitarianism

research streams by investigating whether and how the


psychological traits result in consumer skepticism toward Consumer shopping orientation is the general predisposi
CRM advertising, and whether the resulting skepticism tion toward acts of shopping, and two major types have
affects the consumer's purchase intention, all the while been distinguished: hedonistic and utilitarian (Overby and

â Springer

This content downloaded from 202.65.184.143 on Mon, 19 Aug 2019 03:35:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Tugging on Heartstrings 339

Lee 2006; Scarpi 2012). A hedonistic shopping orientation Consumer Mindset: Individualism and Collectivism

is festive, ludic, or epicurean (Sherry 1990), and relates to


the potential entertainment and emotional value of shop Mindsets, i.e., sets of cognitive operations that produce a
ping (Bellenger et al. 1976). In contrast, a utilitarian disposition in a particular manner have been identified as
shopping orientation is described as practical, task-related, critical in explaining human judgment and decision making
and rational (Batra and Ahtola 1991). Utilitarianism (Hamilton et al. 2011). Mindsets promote orientations that,
motivates shoppers to focus on product-related elements rather than being specific to a particular task, represent a
and the achievement of product acquisition tasks in a dél global readiness to respond in a particular way (Gollwitzer
ibérant and an efficient manner (Babin et al. 1994). It is 1990). Individualism and collectivism have been identified
important to note that hedonism and utilitarianism are not as mindsets which value the individual differently relative
mutually exclusive (Babin et al. 1994), which means that a to the group (Triandis 1989). Individualism is a mindset in
consumer may exhibit both types of shopping orientation in which personal benefits are perceived as more important
one shopping trip. than the interests of the group (Wagner and Moch 1986).
This study proposes that a consumer's shopping orien On the other hand, a person with a collective mindset
tation affects his/her skepticism toward advertising. emphasizes group goals over personal ones (Triandis
Hedonism is expected to negatively influence consumer 1995). The main characteristics of such mindsets include
skepticism toward advertising. Strahilevitz and Myers collective identity, emotional dependence, sharing duties
(1998) suggested that, in a consumption context, CRM is and obligations, and in-group harmony (Hofstede 1980;
more effective in promoting hedonic products than utili Triandis 1995). As individualistic and collectivistic mind
tarian ones because hedonic consumption is more likely to sets are two separate dimensions, a person may simulta
arouse both pleasure and guilt. They proposed the concept neously exhibit and experience both tendencies (Triandis
of affect-based complementarity whereby emotions evoked 1989, 1994; Triandis and Gelfand 1998). Thus, an indi
by hedonic consumption are countered or complemented vidual may value personal initiatives and independence but
by the positive feelings inspired by charitable giving. still consider group sharing and harmony (McCarty and
Polonsky and Wood (2001) also suggested that consumers Shrum 2001).
might use a donation to a cause to rationalize their pur The previous research has suggested that the two
chase of hedonic products and, thus, overcome cognitive mindsets, above, influence the evaluation of advertising
dissonance. Hibbert et al. (2007) found that, in a charitable (e.g., Polyorat and Alden 2005; Zhang et al. 2011). There is
donation context, the respondents' skepticism toward a strong link between interdependent self-construal and the
advertising tactics is negatively related to guilt arousal collectivistic mindset (Polyorat and Alden 2005; Triandis
induced by an advertisement's guilt appeal. It is thus 1989). People with a collectivistic mindset tend to carry
expected that hedonically oriented consumers tend to be "other-serving" motives and act in accordance with social
easily made to feel guilty about their shopping behaviors, norms and the anticipated expectations of others (Markus
which may lead to decreased skepticism toward CRM and Kitayama 1991). Compared with those from individ
advertising. ualistic cultures, people from collectivistic cultures are
On the other hand, consumers with a utilitarian shopping more interested in supporting pro-social causes (Barrett
orientation are more rational (Batra and Ahtola 1991; et al. 2004; Moorman and Blakely 1995). Consumers with
Sherry 1990). Those individuals are more cognitively dri an interdependent self-construal prefer CRM over price
ven and process information more analytically (Babin et al. discounts (Winterich and Barone 2011). Variations in self
1994). According to the elaboration likelihood model construal influence moral emotions toward CRM cam
(Petty and Cacioppo 1986), such people also process paigns (Kim and Johnson 2013). Vaidyanathan et al. (2013)
information systematically. Therefore, consumers with a recently found that people in interdependent self-construal
utilitarian shopping orientation are likely to process CRM societies are willing to pay a higher price to support a
information such as advertising claims in great detail and product with a cause. Consequently, we expect to see a
evaluate the degree to which the advertiser is attempting to similar result on an individual level: i.e., compared with
manipulate their attitudes. As a result, skepticism should consumers with an individualistic mindset, the counterparts
occur during such information processing. A pair of with a collectivistic mindset are more likely to be attracted
hypotheses is thus proposed as follows. to a charity incentive in a CRM campaign. The advertising
claims supporting participation in social causes are related
Hla Higher hedonism decreases skepticism toward
to reinforcing a commitment to social benefits and the
advertising.
social good, which is congruent with the nature of the
Hlb Higher utilitarianism increases skepticism toward collectivist mindset. Thus, we predict that such congruency
advertising. leads to decreased skepticism toward the CRM ad.

Springer

This content downloaded from 202.65.184.143 on Mon, 19 Aug 2019 03:35:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
340 C-T. Chang, Z-H. Cheng

Conversely, individualistic mindset values such as Gender Differences in the Relationship Between
uniqueness and self-interests which are less likely to be Psychological Traits and Skepticism Toward
relevant to the claims of CRM ads. Marketing scholars Advertising
recently found that the self-enhancement concept implied
by a luxury brand is in conflict with the self-transcendence The different genders perceive charitable giving differ
touted in the brand's corporate social responsibility infor ently. Gender could affect the likelihood of the individual
mation (Torelli et al. 2012). The conflict may trigger becoming a donor and the level of the actual donation. In
cognitive dissonance and then negatively influence the general, females are more likely to give—and give more
consumer's response to the brand's corporate social generously—than males (Harvey 1990; Jones and Posnett
responsibility activities. Therefore, the conflict between the 1991; Schlegelmilch 1988). Compared to their male
individualistic mindset and the nurturing orientation counterparts, females tend to be more concerned about
espoused by CRM should reduce the level of persuasion of altruism, specifically, as a way of showing human caring, a
CRM advertising and induce more skepticism toward it. means to help others, and an expression of gratitude and
The discussion above leads to the following hypotheses. moral beliefs (Eagly and Crowley 1986; Kashdan et al.
2009). Moreover, females tend to promote social change
H2a A more individualistic mindset leads to increased
and help others who are less fortunate (Newman 2000).
skepticism toward advertising.
Chrenka et al. (2003) analyzed the 1998 Survey of Con
H2b A more collectivistic mindset leads to decreased sumer Finances, a triennial survey conducted by the Fed
skepticism toward advertising. eral Reserve in the US, and found that females are more
likely than males to give time and/or money. Several
studies have revealed that, as with monetary donations,
Purchase Intention
volunteering is gender-specific in that more females than
males volunteer (Schlegelmilch and Tynan 1989; Smith
When consumers are skeptical, they respond less positively
1999; Wymer 1998). The following arguments are devel
to a persuasion message because they evaluate the message
oped to propose that gender differences will moderate the
to be untrue, unbelievable, and biased (Manuel et al. 2012;
relationship between shopping orientation and consumer
Obermiller et al. 2005). Szykman et al. (1997) suggested
skepticism toward advertising.
that consumers are likely to ignore the product claims as
Because of their stronger tendency to give (Harvey
being of questionable accuracy.
1990; Jones and Posnett 1991; Schlegelmilch 1988),
Skeptical consumers, as opposed to less skeptical
female consumers are expected to care more about social
consumers, have been found to be less likely to respond
and environment issues than do male consumers. High
positively to CRM (Br0nn and Vrioni 2001; Webb and
interest in a cause may drive females to agree with the
Möhr 1998). For example, consumers who are highly
advertising messages of a CRM campaign. The cause
skeptical of the CRM claims tend to pay more attention to
promotion may be perceived as being driven by an intrinsic
the company's motives for engaging in CRM (Foreh and
motive. Ross et al. (1992) actually found that females
Grier 2003) and recognize the advertised company's self
assign a higher valence to a cause than do males, along
serving intentions (e.g., enhancing its reputation) (Webb
with a greater intention to purchase a product with a cause.
and Möhr 1998). This makes those individuals less vul
Females' skepticism toward advertising is expected to be
nerable to altruistic incentives. Barone et al. (2000)
minimized. Based on this female tendency toward altruism,
indicated that consumer skepticism toward general and
the negative influences of hedonism on skepticism (HIa)
specific marketing efforts such as CRM would reduce the
will be less salient for females than for males.
effects of CRM campaigns. Skeptical individuals may
The effects of utilitarian values are stronger for male
care about the economic trade-off more than they care
consumers than for their female counterparts (Yang and
about the social cause. Thus, a skeptical attitude toward
Lee 2010). Compared with females, males are more likely
advertising generates more unfavorable reactions to the
to care about functional factors during the shopping pro
advertised companies and lowers the behavioral intention
cess (Dittmar et al. 2004), and make judgments based on
to buy a product associated with a cause (Manuel et al.
rational reasoning (Epstein et al. 1996). Based on such
2012). A negative relationship between consumer skepti
systematical processing, males are more likely to question
cism toward advertising and purchase intention is
the firm's motives for participating in the cause. CRM is
expected.
thus likely to be viewed as being driven by an extrinsic
H3 A higher level of consumer skepticism toward
motive, which facilitates greater skepticism toward the
advertising leads to a lower level of purchase intention.advertising. Based on H lb, the impact of utilitarianism on

Springer

This content downloaded from 202.65.184.143 on Mon, 19 Aug 2019 03:35:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Tugging on Heartstrings 341

consumer skepticism toward advertising will be greater for


male consumers than for their female counterparts. Based
on the discussion above, the following hypotheses are
proposed.

H4a The negative effect of hedonism on consumer


skepticism toward advertising will be weaker for females
than for males.

H4b The positive effect of utilitarianism on consumer


skepticism toward advertising will be stronger for males
than for females.

Gender differences in the relationship between mindset


and consumer skepticism toward advertising are expected
for two reasons. First, prior studies commonly supported
the viewpoint that males display higher levels of individ Fig.
Fig. 11The
Theconceptual
conceptual
framework
framework
ualism, whereas females show a greater tendency toward
collectivism (Cross and Madson 1997; Gardner et al. 2002; H5b: The negative effect of collectivism on consumer
Josephs et al. 1992; Kashima et al. 2004; Kemmelmeier skepticism toward advertising will be stronger for females
and Oyserman 2001). For example, Josephs et al. (1992) than for males.
found that male self-conceptions are more likely to be
Figure 1 presents an integrated model which jointly
developed based on individualism, whereas women's self
covers the direct and indirect effects caused by the
conceptions were more often based on collectivist notions.
researched variables, and summarizes the predicted rela
Cross and Madson (1997) noted that while males often
tionships between those variables.
describe themselves more in terms of separateness from
others, females tend to describe themselves in terms of
relationships with others.
Methods
Furthermore, the effect of gender on individual evalua
tions partially depends on the extent of the congruency
Participants and Procedures
between the context and the individual's self-concept/sex
role (Babin and Boles 1998). An individual's evaluations
To examine the proposed hypotheses, a survey was con
can be enhanced when the self-concept and sex role are
ducted in a university in southern Taiwan. We chose a
highly consistent. Social norms related to males are typi
student sample for several reasons. The demographic age
cally expected to include independence, mastery, auton
between 18 and 24 has been identified as one of the groups
omy, and superiority to others (Kirsh and Kuiper 2002;
most amenable to cause marketing (Cone Communications
Watkins et al. 2000). Those social norms are contradictory
2010; Cui et al. 2003). Compared with older generations,
to the concept of giving and helping the disadvantaged, and
young and educated consumers would be more likely to
may evoke questions regarding the reasons for believing
support CRM campaigns (e.g., Barnes and Fitzgibbons
advertising claims. It is thus expected that male consumers
1992; Webb and Möhr 1998). CRM is popularly used to
are more likely than female consumers to develop skepti
promote low-priced consumer goods (e.g., drinks and
cism toward CRM advertising claims. Females are nor
shampoo) (Chang 2008) and these products are affordable
mally expected to embody interdependence, sensitivity,
and highly familiar to students. Furthermore, college stu
nurturance, and a connection with others (Kirsh and Kuiper
dents represent a segment of general public that shows
2002; Watkins et al. 2000). Those social norms are con
skepticism toward advertising with supposed unethical
sistent with the values behind CRM. The congruency
consequences (Larkin 1977). After years of heavy exposure
between the charitable context and the female's sex role
to advertising, students have become cynical and skeptical
should result in a favorable attitude toward CRM, and less
about advertisers and advertising in general (Beard 2003;
skepticism toward the advertising. Thus, the following
Wolburg and Pokrywczynski 2000).
hypotheses are proposed. The field work was conducted in mid-2012. A diverse
H5a: The positive effect of individualism on consumer
group of 291 students was recruited to participate in this
study. 58 % of those surveyed were female and 42 % were
skepticism toward advertising will be stronger for males
than for females. male. Ages ranged from 18 to 28 years with a mean age of

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from 202.65.184.143 on Mon, 19 Aug 2019 03:35:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
342 C-T. Chang, Z-H. Cheng

22.73 and a standard deviation of 4.21. With regard to by examining the reliability and validity of each construct.
sample characteristics, 63.6 % participants were under Then, H la, H lb, H2a, H2b, and H3 were tested by
graduate students, and the rest were either graduate or assessing the structural model. LISREL 8.72 statistical
doctoral students. software was employed to assess both the measurement
model and the structural model. Finally, a moderated
Instrument and Measures multiple regression analysis (MMR) was conducted using
SPSS 19 to detect the moderating effects of consumer
The constructs were adopted from various studies and were gender differences as proposed in H4a, H4b, H5a, and H5b.
measured by multiple items. Consumer skepticism toward The detailed results are presented in the following sections.
advertising was measured with six items adopted from
Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998). Hedonism and utiliMeasurement Model
tarianism were measured with 11 items and 6 items,
respectively, from Babin et al. (1994). Individualism wasWe present the results of a confirmatory factor analysis in
assessed with a 5-item scale incorporating McCarty and Table 3 in Appendix. The findings indicate that the mea
Shrum (2001) and Noguchi (2007). Collectivism was surement model fit the data well, according to the criteria
measured with a 5-item scale from McCarty and Shrumset by Hu and Bentler (1995) (x<579) = 1239.41; root mean
(2001). The six items for purchase intention were modifiedsquare error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.06; non
from Hou et al. (2008). All measures were assessed on normed fit index [NNFI] = 0.93; comparative fit index
7-point Likert scales ranging from strongly disagree to[CFI] = 0.93; incremental fit index [IFI] = 0.93; Stan
strongly agree. dardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = 0.06). With
To insure the quality of the questionnaire, the following the exception of two items of the utilitarianism construct
procedures were conducted in this study. First, wewhich had lower but acceptable factor loadings (0.43 and
employed the translation-back translation procedure sug 0.48, respectively), the factor loadings of other scale items
gested by Van de Vijver and Leung (1997) to insure conwere greater than 0.5 (ranging from 0.51 to 0.85) and
sistency between the Chinese and English versions of the significant at the 0.001 level. Thus, the convergent validity
measurement items. The English questionnaire was ini of the measurement items was confirmed in accordance
tially translated into Chinese and then translated back into with the criteria set by Anderson and Gerbing (1988).
English by a second translator, after which the two versions Table 1 shows the correlations, summary statistics, and
were compared. Next, two marketing professors modified internal consistency estimates among the constructs. The
the descriptions of all measurement items to insure conCronbach's alphas of the measured constructs (ranging
struct validity. Finally, a pretest with 30 undergraduate from 0.74 to 0.90) met the criterion proposed by Nunnally
students was performed. After reliability analysis was (1978) (i.e., higher than 0.70). The composite reliability
performed, any item with an item-to-total value below 0.3 levels of the scales of six constructs ranged from 0.74 to
was deleted. Based on such a criterion, six items were0.90, within the acceptable level recommended by Fornell
removed (i.e., one item for consumer skepticism towardand Larcker (1981). The reliability analysis results indicate
advertising, four items for hedonism, and one item forthat the measures of all constructs were reliable.
utilitarianism; see the Table 3 in Appendix). Thus, the Discriminant validity among the constructs was assessed
three-section questionnaire consisted of 22 items aboutvia two different methods. The average variance extracted
individual differences (i.e., hedonism, utilitarianism, indi (AVE) of each construct was calculated and compared with
vidualism, and collectivism), 14 items about consumerthe correlation coefficient between each pair of constructs.
attitudes (i.e., consumer skepticism toward advertising andBased on Fornell and Larcker (1981), the discriminant
purchase intention), and a section on demographic charvalidity is supported if the square of the correlation coef
acteristics. Respondents took about 15 min to complete theficient is less than the AVE. Adherence to this rule was
questionnaire. verified by comparing the AVE values (which ranged from
0.36 to 0.57) to the correlation coefficients (which ranged
from -0.40 to 0.35) for each pair of constructs (see
Results Table 1). The other method was to determine whether the
confidence interval of the correlation parameter excluded
Data analysis was conducted in three parts. Following the the value of 1 for all possible pairs of constructs (Anderson
two-step approach proposed by Anderson and Gerbing and Gerbing 1988). The data were validated. Overall, the
(1988), confirmatory factor analysis was initially con measurement scales were satisfactory in terms of psycho
ducted to evaluate the quality of the measurement model metric properties.

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from 202.65.184.143 on Mon, 19 Aug 2019 03:35:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Tugging on Heartstrings 343

Table 1 Correlations, summary stati

Constructs
(1) (1)
(2) (2) (4)
(3) (3) (4)
(5) (5)
(6)(6) Mean
Mean SD

1. PI
(0.56)
(0.56) 4.91
4.910.94
2. CSA
-0.19**
-0.19**(0.53)
(0.53) 4.73
4.730.88
3. HED0.30***
0.30***-0.28***
-0.28*** (0.57)
(0.57) 4.53
4.53 1.22
4. UT 0.07
0.07 0.26***
0.26*** -0.40***
-0.40*** (0.45)
(0.45) 5.04
5.04 0.92
5. IND 0.05
0.05 0.20** 0.01 0.26*** (0.37) 5.14 0.76
6. COL 0.35***
0.35*** -0.03
-0.03 0.06
0.06 0.29***
0.29*** 0.33***
0.33*** (0.57)
(0.57) 5.10
5.10 0.93
7. a 0.88 0.90
0.88 0.900.90
0.900.79
0.79 0.74
0.74 0.86
0.86

8. C.R. 0.88
0.88 0.90
0.90 0.90
0.90 0.79
0.79 0.74
0.74 0.87
0.87

Diagonal elements (in bold) are AVE


PI purchase intention, CSA consumer skept
C.R. composite reliability
** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

Table 2 Results of MMR

Variables Consumer skepticism


toward advertising

Model 1 Model 2

Main effects

Hedonism —0.16* —0.31***

Utilitarianism 0.19** 0.20*

Individualism 0.13* 0.30***


Collectivism —0.12* —0.03

Consumer gender —,11T —.10


Two-way interactions

X2=l215.09, d.f.=549, RMSEA=.06, NNFI=.92, CFI=.93, IFI=.93, SRMR=.08 Hedonism x consumer gender 0.20*
Note: *p<.05\ **p<.0\. Utilitarianism x consumer gender 0.02
Individualism x consumer gender —0.21*
Fig. 2 Structural model for examining the relationships among
shopping orientation, mindset, and consumer responses to cause Collectivism x consumer gender —0.13T
related marketing AR2 - 0.05**
R2 0.13 0.18
Adjusted R2 0.12 0.16
Structural Model
F value 8.79 4.24

Gender: 0 = male,
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted for
hypothesis testing. The results of SEM are shown in Fig. f
2 p< 0.1; * p < 0.0

(X?549) = 12 1 5.09, RMSEA = 0.06, NNFI = 0.92, CFI =


0.93, IFI = 0.88, and SRMR = 0.08). All fit indices indi
cated an acceptable fit between the model and the data. HI consumer
a skepti
predicted that people with a higher level of hedonismwas significant
Thus,
would be more likely to have a lower level of consumer H2a was
skepticism toward advertising. A significant negative relanegative relation
tionship was confirmed (ß = —0.21, t — —2.86, p < 0.01). skepticism towa
Thus, Hla was supported. Hlb suggested that a consumer cients were foun
with a higher level of utilitarianism would tend to have ap < 0.05). Thus, H
higher level of consumer skepticism toward CRM adver influence of con
tising. As expected, a significant positive relationship waspurchase intent
demonstrated (ß = 0.17, t — 2.04, p < 0.05). H2a pro
effect was neg
posed that individualism would be positively related to
—2.82, p < 0.01)

£) Springer

This content downloaded from 202.65.184.143 on Mon, 19 Aug 2019 03:35:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
344 C-T. Chang, Z-H. Cheng

Fig.
Fig. 33 Moderating
Moderatingeffects
effects
of of (a) 6 (b) 6i
consumer
consumergender
genderdifferences,
differences, «
♦ 'i ' ' "»Male
■♦Male ♦-"♦Male
£
a Relationship
Relationshipbetween
between CA

hedonism and consumer :s 5.5


-*■»
•- — «Female 2 5.5
•»•» «Female
cu a
5
skepticism toward advertising, M

b Relationship between *5 5 5i
otj
individualism and consumer
skepticism toward advertising, Ï 4.5 4.5 H
c Relationship between >
-o
collectivism and consumer <
skepticism toward advertising
Low High Low High
Hedonism Individualism

(C)
61
£ ♦ «Male
♦—♦Male

8-
» —— »Female
SFemale
«
1. »
»5
CUD
e

4.5 — j
>

3
Low High
Collectivism

Moderating Effects of Consumer Gender interaction, the simple slope analysis recommended by
Aiken and West (1991) was performed. The relationships
between hedonism and consumer skepticism toward
This study further proposed that gender-based differences
existed in the relationships between consumer skepticismadvertising for females and males, respectively, are plotted
toward advertising and the proposed antecedents (i.e., in Fig. 3a. A significant negative impact of hedonism on
hedonism, utilitarianism, individualism, and collectivism).
consumer skepticism toward advertising was found for
males (ß = —0.22, t = —2.05, p < 0.05), but not for
Two MMR models (i.e., alternative models with and without
females (/? = —0.01, r = —0.12, n.s.). Thus, H4a was
interaction terms) were compared. The moderating effect
was shown to exist when the interaction term contributed a supported.
significant level of R2 to the dependent variable (i.e., con H4b predicted that male consumers would display a
sumer skepticism toward advertising). Based on Aiken and stronger positive relationship between utilitarianism and
West (1991), all independent variables were centered toconsumer skepticism toward advertising than would their
mean to eliminate possible multicollinearity problems. female counterparts. However, the results of Model 2
Table 2 summarizes the MMR results. The main effects revealed that the interaction effect between utilitarianism
of hedonism, utilitarianism, individualism, collectivism,
and gender on consumer skepticism toward advertising was
not significant (ß = 0.02, t = 0.19, n.s.). Thus, H4b was
and gender were initially included in the regression model
(see Model 1), and then four two-way interactions were not supported.
placed as presented in Model 2. A significant increase in H5a proposed that the positive effect of individualism
the R2 of consumer skepticism toward advertising on wasconsumer skepticism toward advertising would be
found in this step (Model 2: AR2 = 0.05, p < 0.01), greater sug for males than for females. The interaction of
gesting that consumer gender played an important moder individualism and consumer gender was significant in
ating role. Model 2 (ß = —0.21, t = —2.48, p < 0.05). Further sim
H4a proposed that the negative relationship between ple slope analysis indicated that a positive significant
hedonism and consumer skepticism toward advertising was relationship between individualism and consumer skepti
weaker for females than for males. As reported in Model 2, cism toward advertising was found for males (ß — 0.34,
the interaction effect of hedonism and gender was signifi t = 2.37, p < 0.05), but not for females (ß = 0.01,
cant (ß = 0.20, t = 2.44, p < 0.05). To further explain this t = 0.10, n.s.) (see Fig. 3b). Thus, H5a was confirmed.

"Sj Springer

This content downloaded from 202.65.184.143 on Mon, 19 Aug 2019 03:35:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Tugging on Heartstrings 345

Finally, H5b suggested that collectivism affected female (Barone et al. 2000; Cui et al. 2003; Elving 2012; Kim and
consumer skepticism toward advertising more than it Lee 2009; Singh et al. 2009) or purchase intention (Hou
affected male skepticism. As shown in Model 2, the et al. 2008). Recent research depicted consumer attitudes
interaction between collectivism and consumer gender was toward CRM using demographics and psychographics
marginally significant (ß — —0.13, t = -1.80, p < 0.1). including interpersonal trust, religious belief, social net
Figure 3c further shows that collectivism was negatively works, and external locus of control in a regression model
related to consumer skepticism toward advertising in the (Youn and Kim 2008). With our model, we aimed to
female group (ß = —0.23, t = -1.92, p < 0.1), but no establish a link between psychological traits and con
such relationship was obtained in the male group (ß = sumer skepticism. Our findings confirm the importance of
—0.03, t = -0.21, n.s.). Thus, H5b was supported. psychological traits in consumer skepticism toward
advertising (Boush et al. 1994; Morimoto and Chang
2009; Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998; Tan and Tan
Discussion 2007; Thakor and Goneau-Lessard 2009; Tien and Phau
2010). Second, although gender differences have been
Consumers are often skeptical about advertising claims identified as important in prosocial behaviors (Harvey
related to a company's participation in social or environ 1990; Jones and Posnett 1991; Schlegelmilch 1988;
mental issues. Skeptical consumers may perceive a CRM Schlegelmilch and Tynan 1989; Smith 1999; Wymer
campaign as manipulative and merely designed to enrich a 1998), researchers examined gender separately from other
corporation. In this study, four psychological characteris variables (e.g., Ross et al. 1992). In this research, con
tics were pinpointed to provide new information regarding sumer gender differences were considered to be a mod
the antecedents of consumer skepticism toward advertising erator between the psychological traits and skepticism.
in a CRM context. Via SEM, the empirical evidence sup The results echo the previous research that males and
ports most of the hypotheses and contributes to the CRM females perceive charitable giving differently (Chrenka
literature on consumer behavior. Four main observations et al. 2003; Eagly and Crowley 1986; Newman 2000;
are noteworthy. Schlegelmilch and Tynan 1989). More importantly, those
First, a hedonistic shopping orientation and collectivisticdifferences are observed to amplify the influences of
mindset are found to reduce consumer skepticism towardpsychological traits.
advertising. Second, utilitarianism and an individualistic Our findings have important implications for marketers.
mindset may facilitate consumer skepticism toward Although advertisers cannot administer shopping orienta
advertising. Third, skepticism toward advertising has tion a or mindset scales to members of their target audi
negative relationship with consumer purchase intentions. ence, this does not diminish the importance of under
Finally, gender has been identified as an important variable standing of how these characteristics affect consumer
which moderates the relationships between three psycho behavior. One could argue that individual differences in
logical traits (i.e., hedonism, individualism, and collectiv shopping orientation and mindset are, essentially, a nat
ism) and consumer skepticism toward advertising.
urally occurring segmentation of the market, suggesting
However, results showed that gender differences failed to
that advertisers may improve their results through judi
moderate the effect of utilitarianism on consumer skepticious ad placement since audiences with different char
cism toward advertising. One possible reason may be thatacteristics may have different media habits. For example,
certain TV shows (e.g., The Bachelor and Temptation
females who are more utilitarian have a greater level of
intention to search for information before making a deciIsland) and publications (e.g., Gossip magazine) may
sion (Wang 2010). The search for information may provideattract audience groups with hedonic orientations. On the
a female with a greater understanding of CRM claims, other hand, people who are more utilitarian may prefer
which may increase her skepticism toward the advertising.the Discovery Channel or TV programs such as Who
Future research may validate such arguments by incorpo Wants to Be a Millionaire. In addition, the readership of a
rating the measure of information searching. particular magazine can be classified as having an audi
This study makes two major contributions to the liter ence with a more individualistic orientation or mindset
ature. First, to date, little research has focused on the
(e.g., readers of Forbes versus readers of The Progres
psychological trait of consumer skepticism toward adver sive) (McCarty and Shrum 2001). Marketers are encour
aged to choose media or program contexts related to
tising in CRM. A great deal of prior research examined
contextual or marketing variables in consumer skepticismcollectivism rather than individualism. The de facto target

Springer

This content downloaded from 202.65.184.143 on Mon, 19 Aug 2019 03:35:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
346 C-T. Chang, Z-H. Cheng

markets may offer potential payoffs to advertisers who than do outside observers. The third potential limitation of
discover and take advantage of the diversity of audience this study is that the empirical model presented here is
characteristics. specific to young adults and, therefore, may not be trans
The other interesting communication challenge related ferable to older generations.
to our findings is how to induce people to think collectiv The current work points to a number of opportunities for
istically or hedonically. As noted earlier, a person may future research. In this study, mindset has been investigated
have high levels of both individualism and collectivism at the individual and psychological level. Further research
(e.g., Sinha and Tripathi 1994), and collectivism has been may explore it at the cultural level (e.g., differences in
found to reduce skepticism toward advertising. These individualism or collectivism across countries) (e.g., Leigh
suggest that marketing communication efforts should and Choi 2007). In this study, consumer gender differences
evoke consumers' more collectivistic selves rather than have been identified as having a moderating role when
their individualistic selves. Similarly, marketers should use psychological traits are taken into consideration. Future
emotional appeals that apply to a more hedonic nature.research should carefully examine such complicated rela
Indeed, Chang (2011, 2012) has noted that guilt appeals tionships when considering more individual difference
and cause-focused ads could enhance advertising effecvariables. Furthermore, future studies could consider more
tiveness for CRM promotions. Advertising elements rela complicated models such as the hierarchical Bayes model
ted to collective thoughts or hedonic feelings should shift (Allenby and Ginter 1995) to incorporate consumer heter
the consumer's focus and reduce their skepticism toward ogeneity and to investigate how CRM evaluation may be
the ads. affected by consumer demographic and psychographic
profiles. Finally, the question of whether the relationships
discussed in this research differ when consumers face

Limitations and Directions for Future Research companies which produce harmful products is a topic well
worth further study. An example frequently discussed in
the literature is the tobacco industry (e.g., the R. J. Rey
While this study provides theoretical and practical impli
nolds Tobacco Company embarking on a CRM promotion
cations, some limitations should be acknowledged. The
supporting the Cancer Research Foundation) (Chang and
first limitation pertains to the narrow focus of the study.
Liu 2012). Another instance is the oil industry changing its
Our primary interest was in understanding how shopping
negative image by stressing environmental initiatives.
orientations and different mindsets, measured at the psy
Consumers might interpret this as the company's attempt to
chological level, relate to consumer attitudes and behavior
toward CRM. Because of this interest, we focused on a change its prevailing negative public perception, and,
limited set of antecedents. Therefore, several known ante consequently, their skepticism may be enhanced (Szykman
2004; Yoon et al. 2006). It will be important to examine the
cedents to consumer skepticism toward advertising (e.g.,
role played by the antecedents influencing consumer
self-esteem, involvement, and cynicism) were not included.
skepticism toward advertising when consumers face com
Furthermore, this research was limited to consumer
panies providing products that are potentially harmful to
behavior regarding CRM. Thus, although the study has
some members of society.
advanced the understanding of how shopping orientations
Investigating the psychographic characteristics of con
and different mindsets relate to consumer skepticism
sumer skepticism and purchase intention will assist mar
toward advertising, it does not specifically address skepti
keters in making strategic and tactical decisions about
cism in the broader context of the full range of antecedents
CRM programs, including cause selection, targeting, and
to consumer attitudes, nor does it specifically address the
message strategy. Such a segmentational approach to
relationships of these consumer characteristics to other
identifying who is more likely to purchase from companies
purchasing behaviors. Second, this research depended
which support charitable causes is a useful addition to our
exclusively on participants' self-reports. Thus, the results
knowledge about what characteristics best explain con
may have been vulnerable to the effects of common
sumer attitudes toward CRM and about how to communi
method variance. However, the problems attributed to
cate with CRM advocates.
common method variance may be overstated (Spector
2006). In our case, self-reports may be the most accurate
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the National
means of assessing psychological characteristics, given that Science Council of Taiwan, under grant NSC100-2628-H-110-005
individuals should have better insight into their own beliefsMY2, for financial support.

<0 Springer

This content downloaded from 202.65.184.143 on Mon, 19 Aug 2019 03:35:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Tugging on Heartstrings 347

Appendix

Table 3 Results of confirmatory factor analysis

Constructs
Constructs Factor
Factor t values
t valuesSources
Sources
loadings

Purchase
Purchase intention
intention Hou
Houet al. (2008)
et al. (2008)
1.1
1.1am
ameager
eager
to learn
to learn
more about
more thisabout
product
this
which
product
is relatedwhich
to a campaign
is related
for a cause
to a 0.52
campaign
9.13 for a cause 0.52 9.13
2.1
2.1would
wouldbe willing
be willing
to pay to
a higher
pay aprice
higher
for a product
price for
fromaa product
firm which
from
campaigns
a firm
for awhich
cause 0.73
campaigns
13.88 for a cause 0.73 13.88
than
thana product
a product
of a firm
of a which
firmdoes
which
not does not

3.1 am likely to participate in a campaign for a cause by purchasing the product 0.80 15.77
4. I would be willing to influence others to purchase this cause-related product 0.85 17.45
5. I would be willing to purchase this cause- related product 0.82 16.56
6.1 would consider purchasing from this firm which donates to a cause in order to help it 0.74 14.
Consumer skepticism toward advertising Obermiller
Obermillerand and

1. We can count on getting the truth in most advertising 0.63 11.55 Spangenberg
Spangenberg(1998) (199

2. I believe advertising is informative 0.51 8.89


3. Advertising is generally truthful 0.77 15.12
4. Advertising is a reliable source of information about the quality and
5. Advertising is truth well told 0.79 15.74
6. In general, advertising presents a true picture of the product being advertised 0.69 13.05
7.1 feel I've been accurately informed after viewing most advertisements 0.84 17.11
8. Most advertising provides consumers with essential information 0.72 13.75
Hedonism Babin
Babinet al. (1994)
et al. (1994)
1. This shopping trip was truly a joy 0.81 16.21
2. I continued to shop, not because I had to, but because I wanted to 0.71 13.51
3. Compared to
to other
other things
things II could
could have
have done,
done, the
the time
time spent
spentshopping
shoppingwas
wastruly
trulyenjoyable
enjoyable0.80
0.8016.09
16.09
4. While shopping, I was able to forget my problems 0.77 15.21
5. During the trip, I felt the excitement of the hunt 0.83 16.80
6. This shopping trip was not a very nice time out 0.80 15.88
7.1 enjoyed being immersed in exciting new products 0.54 9.66
Utilitarianism Babin et al. (1994)
1.1 accomplished just what I wanted to on this shopping trip 0.43 7.15
2. This was a good store visit because it was over very quickly 0.48 8.16
3. While shopping, I found just the item(s) I was looking for 0.67 12.17
4.1 feel really smart about this shopping trip 0.85 16.65
5. I could buy what I really needed 0.83 16.04
Individualism McCarty and
McCarty and Shrum
Shram
1. I consider myself to be unique, different from others in many respects 0.56 8.98 (2001); Noguchi (

2. I want to be competitive with others 0.59 9.58


3. I usually work independently from others 0.58 9.34
4. I depend on my own opinions rather than on those of other people 0.73 12.15
5.1 depend on my own judgment when deciding what I am going to do 0.55 8.84
Collectivism and Shrum
McCarty and Shram
(2001) 0.74 14.15
1.1 usually work hard for the goals of a group even if it doesn't result in personal recognition
2.1 want to be a cooperative participant in group activities 0.81 16.02
3. It's important for me to readily help others in need of help 0.82 16.27
4.1 could
could do
do what
what is
is good
good for
for most
mostof
ofthe
thepeople
peopleininthe
thegroup,
group,even
even
ifif
it it
means
means
that
that
the
the
individual
individual
0.78
0.78
15.25
15.25
will receive
receive less
less

5. Sharing with others is important 0.61 10.96

y2
X2= 1239.41,
= d.f.
1239.41,
= 579, RMSEA = 0.06,
d.f. NNFI=
= 0.93,
579,CFI = 0.93,
RMSEA
IFI = 0.93, SRMR== 0.06
0.06, NNFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.93, IFI =

ô Springer

This content downloaded from 202.65.184.143 on Mon, 19 Aug 2019 03:35:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
348 C-T. Chang, Z-H. Cheng

References Chen, F.-P., & Leu, J.-D. (2011). Product involvement in the link
between skepticism toward advertising and its effects. Social
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and Behavior and Personality, 39(2), 153-160.
Chrenka, J., Gutter, M. S., & Jasper, C. (2003). Gender differences in the
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
decision to give time or money. Consumer Interests Annual, 40,1-4.
Allenby, G. M., & Ginter, J. L. (1995). Using extremes to design
Cone Communications. (2010). 2010 cone cause evolution study, from
products and segment markets. Journal of Marketing Research,
52(4), 392-403. http://www.conecomm.com/2010-cone-cause-evolution-study.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122( 1), 5-37.
Cui, Y., Trent, E. S., Sullivan, P. M., & Matiru, G. N. (2003). Cause
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
Anuar, M. M., & Mohamad, O. (2012). Effects of skepticism on related marketing: How generation Y responds. International
consumer response toward cause-related marketing in Malaysia.
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(6), 310-320.
International Business Research, 5(9), 98-105. Diehl, S., Terlutter, R., Chan, K., & Mueller, B. (2010). A cross
cultural and gender-specific examination of consumer skepticism
Babin, B. J., & Boles, J. S. (1998). Employee behavior in a service
toward advertising in general vs. pharmaceutical advertising—
environment: A model and test of potential differences between
men and women. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 77-91. Empirical evidence from the U.S., Germany and China (Hong
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Kong). In R. Terlutter, S. Diehl, & S. Okazaki (Eds.), Advances
Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of in advertising research (pp. 297-311). Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Consumer Research, 20(4), 644-656. Dittmar, H„ Long, K., & Meek, R. (2004). Buying on the internet:
Gender differences in on-line and conventional buying motiva
Barnes, N. G., & Fitzgibbons, D. A. (1992). Strategic marketing for
tions. Sex Roles, 50(5), 423-444.
charitable organizations. Health Marketing Quarterly, 9(3-4),
103-114. do Paço, A. M. F., & Reis, R. (2012). Factors affecting skepticism
toward green advertising. Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 147-155.
Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence
Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A
of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good
turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature.
Science, 28(2), 248-262. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 283-308.
Eikenberry, A. M. (2009). The hidden costs of cause marketing.
Barone, M. J., Norman, A. T., & Miyazaki, A. D. (2007). Consumer
Stanford Social Innovation Review Summer, 2009, 51-55.
response to retailer use of cause-related marketing: Is more fit
better? Journal of Retailing, 83(4), 437-445.
Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate
Barrett, D. W., Wosinska, W., Butner, J., Petrova, P., Gornik-Durose, associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially
M., & Cialdini, R. B. (2004). Individual differences in the responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34(2), 147-157.
motivation to comply across cultures: The impact of social
Elving, W. J. L. (2012). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility
obligation. Personality and Individual Differences, 57(1), 19-31.
communications: The influence of fit and reputation. Journal of
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian
Marketing Communications iFirst article, 22(1), 1-16.
sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159-170.
Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual
Beard, F. K. (2003). College student attitudes toward advertising's
differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational
ethical, economic, and social consequences. Journal of Business
Ethics, 48(3), 217-228. thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
71(2), 390-405.
Bellenger, D. N., Steinberg, E., & Stanton, W. W. (1976). The congruence
Foreh, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003). When is honesty the best policy?
of store image and self image. Journal of Retailing, 52(1), 17-32.
The effect of stated company intent on consumer skepticism.
Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Kozinets, R. V. (1999).
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 349-356.
Consumer persuasion through cause-related advertising.
Advances in Consumer Research, 26(1), 491-497. Forneil, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Boush, D. M., Friestad, M., & Rose, G. M. (1994). Adolescent
Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
skepticism toward TV advertising and knowledge of advertiser
Gardner, W. L„ Gabriel, S., & Hochschild, L. (2002). When you and I
tactics. Journal of Consumer Research, 21( 1), 165-175.
are "we", you are not threatening: The role of self-expansion in
Br0nn, P. S., & Vrioni, A. B. (2001). Corporate social responsibility
social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol
and cause-related marketing: An overview. International Jour
ogy, 82(2), 239-251.
nal of Advertising, 20(2), 207-222.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product:
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E.
Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal
T. Higgins & R. M. SoiTentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation
and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 53-92). New
of Marketing, 61(1), 68-84.
York: Guilford Press.
Chang, C.-T. (2008). To donate or not to donate? Product character
istics and framing effects of cause-related marketing on Gupta, S., & Pirsch, J. (2006). The company-cause-customer fit
decision in cause-related marketing. Journal of Consumer
consumer purchase behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 25(12),
1089-1110. Marketing, 23(6), 314-326.
Hamilton, R., Vohs, K. D„ Sellier, A.-L., & Meyvis, T. (2011). Being
Chang, C.-T. (2011). Guilt appeals in cause-related marketing.
of two minds: Switching mindsets exhausts self-regulatory
International Journal of Advertising, 30(4), 587-616.
resources. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro
Chang, C.-T. (2012). Missing ingredients in cause-related advertising:
cesses, 115(1), 13-24.
The right formula of execution style and cause framing.
Harvey, J. W. (1990). Benefit segmentation for fund raisers. Journal
International Journal of Advertising, 31(2), 231-256.
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(1), 77-86.
Chang, C.-T., & Liu, H.-W. (2012). Goodwill hunting? Influences of
Hibbert, S., Smith, A., Davies, A., & Ireland, F. (2007). Guilt appeals:
product-cause fit, product type, and donation level in cause
Persuasion knowledge and charitable giving. Psychology &
related marketing. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 30(6),
634-652. Marketing, 24(8), 723-742.

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from 202.65.184.143 on Mon, 19 Aug 2019 03:35:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Tugging on Heartstrings 349

Hofstede, G. (1980).
Moorman, R.Culture's conseque
H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism
ences in work-related,
as an individual difference
values. predictor of organizational
Beveriycitizen
Hou, J., Du, L., & ship
Li, J. of (2008).
behavior. Journal Cause
Organizational Behavior, 16(2),
127-142.
consumer's purchasing intention: Em
China. Asia Pacific Journal
Morimoto, of factors
M., & Chang, S. (2009). Psychological Marketi
affecting
363-380. perceptions of unsolicited commercial e-mail. Journal of Cur
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. rent Issues & Research in Advertising, 31(1), 63-73.
Moscardelli, D., & Liston-Heyes, C. (2005). Consumer socialization
H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues,
and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. in a wired world: The effects of internet use and parental
Irwin, T. (2011). Disconnect between causes, products deter buying. communication on the development of skepticism to advertising.
Retrieved October 3, 2013, from http://www.mediapost.com/ Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 13(3), 62-75.
publications/article/154177/#axzz2aLw9jzhc. Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social
Jones, A., & Posnett, J. (1991). Charitable donations by UK responsibility (CSR) initiatives: Examining the role of brand
households: Evidence from the family expenditure survey. cause fit in cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising,
Applied Economics, 23(2), 343-351. 36(2), 63-74.
Newman, R. (2000). Gender differences in philanthropy. Fund
Josephs, R. A., Markus, H. R., & Tafarodi, R. W. (1992). Gender and
self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Raising Management, 31(3), 28-29.
63(3), 391-402. Noguchi, K. (2007). Examination of the content of individualism/
Kashdan, T. B., Mishra, A., Breen, W. E., & Froh, J. J. (2009). collectivism scales in cultural comparisons of the USA and
Gender differences in gratitude: Examining appraisals, narra Japan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10(3), 131-144.
tives, the willingness to express emotions, and changes inNunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw
psychological needs. Journal of Personality, 77(3), 691-730. Hill.
Kashima, Y., Kokubo, T., Kashima, E. S., Boxall, D., Yamaguchi, S., Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale
& Macrae, K. (2004). Culture and self: Are there within-culture to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of
differences in self between metropolitan areas and regional cities? Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159-186.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(7), 816-823. Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005). Ad
Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S.-C., Gelfand, M. J., & skepticism: The consequences of disbelief. Journal of Advertis
Yuki, M. (1995). Culture, gender, and self: A perspective from ing, 34(3), 7-17.
individualism-collectivism research. Journal of Personality and O'Guinn, T. C., & Faber, R. J. (1989). Compulsive buying: A
Social Psychology, 69(5), 925-937. phenomenological exploration. Journal of Consumer Research,
Kemmelmeier, M., & Oyserman, D. (2001). Gendered influence of 16(2), 147-157.
downward social comparisons on current and possible selves. Overby, J. W., & Lee, E.-J. (2006). The effects of utilitarian and
Journal of Social Issues, 57(1), 129-148. hedonic online shopping value on consumer preference and
Kim, J.-E., & Johnson, K. K. P. (2013). The impact of moral emotions intentions. Journal of Business Research, 59(10-11), 1160-1166.
on cause-related marketing campaigns: A cross-cultural examPetty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and
ination. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 79-90. persuasion. New York: Springer.
Kim, Y. J., & Lee, W.-N. (2009). Overcoming consumer skepticism Polonsky, M. J., & Wood, G. (2001). Can the overcommercialization
in cause-related marketing: The effects of corporate social of cause-related marketing harm society? Journal of Macromar
responsibility and donation size claim objectivity. Journal of keting, 27(1), 8-22.
Promotion Management, 15(A), 465-483. Polyorat, K„ & Alden, D. L. (2005). Self-construal and need-for
Kirsh, G. A., & Kuiper, N. A. (2002). Individualism and relatedness cognition effects on brand attitudes and purchase intentions in
themes in the context of depression, gender, and a self-schema response to comparative advertising in thailand and the United
model of emotion. Canadian Psychology, 43(2), 76-90. States. Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 37-48.
Larkin, E. F. (1977). A factor analysis of college student attitudesRizvi, S. N. Z., Sami, M., & Gull, S. (2012). Impact of consumer
toward advertising. Journal of Advertising, 6(2), 42-46. involvement on advertising skepticism: A framework to reduce
Leigh, J. H., & Choi, Y. (2007). The impact of attributions about life advertising skepticism. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contempo
events on perceptions of foreign products: Contrasts in individ rary Research in Business, 4(8), 465—472.
ualism and collectivism. Psychology & Marketing, 24( 1), 41-68. Ross, J. K., Patterson, L. T., & Stutts, M. A. (1992). Consumer
Mangleburg, T. F., & Bristol, T. (1998). Socialization and adoles perceptions of organizations that use cause-related marketing.
cents' skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Advertising, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(1), 93-97.
27(3), 11-21. Scarpi, D. (2012). Work and fun on the internet: The effects of
Manuel, E., Youn, S., & Yoon, D. (2012). Functional matching effect in utilitarianism and hedonism online. Journal of Interactive
crm: Moderating roles of perceived message quality and skepticism. Marketing, 26(1), 53-67.
Journal of Marketing Communications iFirst article, 57,1-22. Schlegelmilch, B. B. (1988). Targeting of fund-raising appeals—How
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: to identify donors. European Journal of Marketing, 22(1), 31-40.
Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psycholog Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Tynan, C. (1989). Who volunteers? An
ical Review, 98(2), 224-253. investigation into the characteristics of charity volunteers.
McCarty, J. A., & Shrum, L. J. (2001). The influence of individu Journal of Marketing Management, 5(2), 133-151.
alism, collectivism, and locus of control on environmental Seock, Y.-K., & Bailey, L. R. (2008). The influence of college
beliefs and behavior. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, students' shopping orientations and gender differences on online
20(1), 93-104. information searches and purchase behaviours. International
Möhr, L. A., Eroglu, D., & Ellen, P. S. (1998). The development and Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(2), 113-121.
testing of a measure of skepticism toward environmental claims Sherry, J. F, Jr. (1990). A socioculturel analysis of a midwestern
in marketers' communications. Journal of Consumer Affairs, American flea market. Journal of Consumer Research, 17( 1),
32(1), 30-55. 13-30.

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from 202.65.184.143 on Mon, 19 Aug 2019 03:35:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
350 C-T. Chang, Z-H. Cheng

Singh, S., Kristensen, L., & Villasenor, E. (2009). Overcoming Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:
skepticism towards cause related claims: The case of Norway. Westview Press.
International Marketing Review, 26(3), 312-326. Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of
Sinha, D., & Tripathi, R. C. (1994). Individualism in a collectivist horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal
culture: A case of coexistence of opposites. In U. Kim, H. of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118-128.
C. Triandis, Ç. Kâgitçibaçi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Vaidyanathan, R., Aggarwal, P., & Kozlowski, W. (2013). Interde
Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applica pendent self-construal in collectivist cultures: Effects on com
tions (pp. 123-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pliance in a cause-related marketing context. Journal of
Smith, J. D. (1999). Poor marketing or the decline of altruism? Young Marketing Communications, 19(1), 44-57.
people and volunteering in the United Kingdom. International Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis of
Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 4(A), comparative research. In J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, & J.
372-377. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp.
Smith, K. H., & Stutts, M. A. (2006). The influence of individual 247-300). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
factors on the effectiveness of message content in antismoking Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A
advertisements aimed at adolescents. Journal of Consumer coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy.
Affairs, 40(2), 261-293. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58-74.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Wagner, J. A., & Moch, M. K. (1986). Individualism-collectivism:
Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), Concept and measure. Group and Organization Management,
221-232. 11(3), 280-304.
Wang, E. S.-T. (2010). Internet usage purposes and gender differ
Strahilevitz, M. A. (1999). The effects of product type and donation
magnitude on willingness to pay more for a charity-linked brand. ences in the effects of perceived utilitarian and hedonic value.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(3), 215-241. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(2),
Strahilevitz, M. A., & Myers, J. (1998). Donations to charity as 179-183.
Watkins, D., Mortazavi, S., & Trofimova, I. (2000). Independent and
purchase incentives: How well they work may depend on what
you are trying to sell. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), interdependent conceptions of self: An investigation of age,
434-446. gender, and culture differences in importance and satisfaction
Szykman, L. R. (2004). Who are you and why are you being nice? ratings. Cross-Cultural Research, 34(2), 113-134.
Investigating the industry effect on consumer reaction toWebb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer
corporate societal marketing efforts. Advances in Consumer responses to cause-related marketing: From skeptics to socially
Research, 31(1), 306-313. concerned. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17(2),
Szykman, L. R., Bloom, P. N., & Levy, A. S. (1997). A proposed 226-238.

model of the use of package claims and nutrition labels. Journal Winterich, K., & Barone, M. (2011). Warm glow or cold, hard cash?
of Public Policy & Marketing, 16(2), 228-241. Social identify effects on consumer choice for donation versus
Tan, S. J., & Tan, K. L. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of discount promotions. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5),
skepticism toward health claims: An empirical investigation of 855-868.
Singaporean consumers. Journal of Marketing Communications, Wolburg, J. M. and Pokrywczynski, J. (2000). The ABCs of XYZ:
13(1), 59-82. Characteristics that relate to the perceived information value of
Thakor, M. V., & Goneau-Lessard, K. (2009). Development of a scale advertising among college students of generation Y. In Annual
to measure skepticism of social advertising among adolescents. Conference of the American Academy of Advertising (pp.
Journal of Business Research, 62(12), 1342-1349. 161-161). Newport, RI.
Thomas, M. L., Mullen, L. G., & Fraedrich, J. (2011). Increased Wymer, W. W. (1998). Youth development volunteers: Their
word-of-mouth via strategic cause-related marketing. Interna motives, how they differ from other volunteers and correlates
tional Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, of involvement intensity. International Journal of Nonprofit and
16(1), 36-49. Voluntary Sector Marketing, 5(4), 321-336.
Tien, C., & Phau, I. (2010). Consumers' skepticism toward adver Yang, K., & Lee, H.-J. (2010). Gender differences in using mobile
tising claims. In H. Timmermans (Ed.), European Institute of data services: Utilitarian and hedonic value approaches. Journal
Retailing and Services Studies Conference (pp. 2-5), Istanbul. of Research in Interactive Marketing, 4(2), 142-156.
Torelli, C. J., Monga, A. B., & Kaikati, A. M. (2012). Doing poorly Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of
by doing good: Corporate social responsibility and brand corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies
concepts. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 948-963. with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4),
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing 377-390.
cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506-520. Youn, S., & Kim, H. (2008). Antecedents of consumer attitudes
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Theoretical and methodological approaches to toward cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising
the study of collectivism and individualism. In U. Kim, H. Research, 48( 1), 123-137.
C. Triandis, & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Individualism and collec Zhang, L„ Moore, M., & Moore, R. (2011). The effect of self
tivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 41-51). Thousand construals on the effectiveness of comparative advertising.
Oaks: SAGE. Marketing Management Journal, 21(1), 195-206.

â Springer

This content downloaded from 202.65.184.143 on Mon, 19 Aug 2019 03:35:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen