This item is only available as the following downloads:
1 EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LOGO By YOUNG EUN PARK A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER O F ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011
2 2011 Young Eun Park
3 To my parents, family, and Hyunsang for their endless love and support
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This accomplishment would have never happened without the advice and sup port from my committee members, friends, and family. In such, I would like to offer my sincere gratitude for their encouragement and assistance. I believe that without them, I would have been alone on a long journey to finish my thesis; instead, I had thos e who helped me and walked with me on this difficult path. First of all, I would like to express my deep appreciation to my thesis chair, Dr. Mary Ann Ferguson, a Page Legacy Scholar and the Chair of the University of Florida Faculty Senate. She has provid ed me much guidance, advice, understanding, and support throughout my research. It was a great honor to learn from and become inspired by, her. From her lectures to the individual meetings, her insights were invaluable in the development and completion of this work. Naturally, my greatest gratitude goes to Dr. Ferguson. Also, I would like to thank two committee members. Dr. Spiro Kiousis, the chair of the Department of Public Relations, has provided academic counsel and encouragement for the various resear ches I have undertaken, including my thesis. During several classes, his encouragement helped me to conduct research without becoming discouraged. In addition, special gratitude goes to Dr. Moon Lee for her suggestions and assistance throughout the course of my academic work. With her help, I was able to broaden my research area to health communications. During the regular research meetings that she organized, I was given a great opportunity to broaden my knowledge, as well.
5 I want to thank Dr. Linda Childe rs Hon, Dr. Kathleen Kelly, and Dr. Juan Carlos Molleda for their insightful lectures and discussions, which helped me to build theories and knowledge of public relations. I especially appreciate Hyejoon Rim, Moon Hee Cho, Hanna Park, Doori Song, and Yoo J in Chung for helping me recruit samples for pretests of my thesis; Sunyoung Park and Jinsoo Kim for their academic help and research opportunity; the Korean Communigators: Sooyeon Kim, Dae Hee Kim, Chunsik Lee, Jung Min Park, Jiyoung Kim, Hyunji Lim, Jaeji n Lee, Eun Soo Rhee, Jin Sook Im, and Kyung Gook Park, for their emotional support and advice; as well as the Korean Catholic community, for their help throughout the last two years. Also, I would like to express my warm appreciation to my friends in Korea who refreshed my mind and shared happy moments with me. Also, I would like to express my sincere thankfulness to my advisors and professors from my undergraduate studies. Dr. Boseob An, Dr. Man Soo Chung, and Dr. Samsup Cho, from the Department of Public Relations and Advertising, and Dr. Seunghee Lee, from the Department of Clothing and Textiles, who encouraged me to pursue graduate study. Finally, my greatest appreciation goes to my parents and family members. My father, Kyung Ho Park; my mother, Myung S ook Kim, who I admire most; my older sister and forever friend, Jae Eun Park; and Joon Sang Park, who is my lovely younger brother. They always supported and believed in me, while providing great love. Also, I appreciate my grandmother and other family mem bers for their emotional support and Hyunsang Son, who is my longtime friend, my partner, and my love. Their support and love helped m e accomplish one of my dreams. To end, I thank God
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGM ENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 13 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13 Prevalence of Corporate Social Responsi bility ................................ ................. 13 Corporate Social Responsibility ................................ ................................ ........ 14 Increasing Use of CSR Logo and Stakeholder Demand ................................ .. 16 CSR Logo Based on the Elaboration Likelihood Model ................................ .... 18 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 Purpose of the St udy ................................ ................................ .............................. 20 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 23 Corporate Social Responsibility ................................ ................................ .............. 23 Hi story and Conceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility ............................ 23 Definition of Corporate Social Responsibility ................................ .................... 25 Theories of CSR ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 26 Corporate Social Performance ................................ ................................ ......... 28 Corporate Citizenship Theory ................................ ................................ ........... 30 Share holder Value Theory ................................ ................................ ................ 31 Stakeholder Theory ................................ ................................ .......................... 32 Conceptual Basis of the Study ................................ ................................ ......... 33 Empirical Studies of CSR ................................ ................................ ........................ 35 Role of CSR Logo in Persuasion ................................ ................................ ............ 37 Definition of Logo ................................ ................................ ............................. 37 Definition of CSR Logo in Third Party Organization Endorsement Theory ....... 40 Empirical Studies of Logo ................................ ................................ ....................... 42 Empirical Studies of CSR Logo ................................ ................................ ............... 43 Theoretical and Methodological Background ................................ .......................... 45 Logo in the Dual Process Model ................................ ................................ ....... 45 Issue/Product Involvement Definition ................................ ............................... 48 Logo as a Peripheral Cue ................................ ................................ ................. 49 The Effects of In volvement on Persuasion ................................ ....................... 50 Effects of Involvement in CSR Context ................................ ............................ 54 Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 55
7 3 METHOD ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 60 Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 60 Stimulus Development ................................ ................................ ............................ 60 Pretes ts ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 61 Pretest 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 61 Pretest 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 62 Pretest 3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 62 Pretest 4 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 63 Independent Variable ................................ ................................ .............................. 64 Measured Variable ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 65 Main Experiment Procedures ................................ ................................ .................. 66 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 66 Descriptive Statistics ................................ ................................ ........................ 67 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 68 Involvement ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 68 Dependent Variables ................................ ................................ ........................ 68 Cognitive responses ................................ ................................ .................. 68 Perceived CSR ................................ ................................ .......................... 70 Attitude toward the corporation ................................ ................................ .. 70 Behavior intention ................................ ................................ ...................... 70 4 RESULT ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 75 Manipulation Check ................................ ................................ ................................ 75 Categorization of Involvement ................................ ................................ ................ 76 Hypothesis Testing ................................ ................................ ................................ 77 Hypothesis 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 77 Hypothesis 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 78 Additional Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ 79 Multiple Regressions ................................ ................................ ............................... 80 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 87 Summary of Key Findings ................................ ................................ ....................... 87 Hypothesis 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 88 Hypothesis 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 89 Theoretical Implications ................................ ................................ .......................... 91 Practical Implications ................................ ................................ .............................. 94 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 96 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ................................ 97 APPENDIX A INSTRUMENTAL MANIPULATION ................................ ................................ ........ 99 CSR Logo Presence Condition ................................ ................................ ............... 99 CSR Logo Absence Condition ................................ ................................ .............. 100
8 B PRETEST3 LOGOS ................................ ................................ .............................. 101 C QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ ................................ 102 D UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD INFORMED CONSENT APPROVAL ................................ ................................ ........................ 110 Protocol Submission Form ................................ ................................ .................... 110 Informed Consent ................................ ................................ ................................ 113 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 115 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 125
9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Empirical studies of logo ................................ ................................ ..................... 58 3 1 Results of reliability check conducted in pretest1 ................................ ............... 72 3 2 Means and standard deviations of logo familiarity ................................ .............. 72 3 3 Descriptive statistics for demographics of participants ................................ ....... 73 3 4 Results of reliability check in main test ................................ ............................... 73 3 5 Key statistics of cognitive responses and example ................................ ............. 74 4 1 Distribution of sample ................................ ................................ ......................... 83 4 2 A summary of Univariate F values for the d ependent variables ......................... 83 4 3 Means and standard deviations ................................ ................................ .......... 83
10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Example of CSR logos ................................ ................................ ....................... 22 2 1 Example of energy efficiency labels ................................ ................................ ... 59 4 1 Perceived CSR by condition and involvement ................................ .................... 84 4 2 Attitude toward the corporation by condition and involvement ............................ 84 4 3 Behavior inte ntion by condition and involvement ................................ ................ 85 4 4 Cognitive responses by condition and involvement ................................ ............ 85 4 5 The regression lines of CSR logo and involvement on perceived CSR .............. 86
11 Abstract o f Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communication EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LOGO By Young Eun Park August 2011 Chair: Mary Ann Ferguson Major: Mass Communication Little scholarship has empirically tested the effects of CSR and focused on how to create effective CSR communication. The purpose of this study is to test the effectiveness of the CSR logo that is widely used in corporate communication and to fill background is rooted in CSR, especially the stakeholder approach and dual process model of persuasion. The stu dy tested the corporate social responsibility (CSR) logo, focusing on the corporation, supportive behavioral intention, and generation of positive cognitive response analyzed to see whether they generated interaction effects with the CSR logo effects. To test the hypotheses of the study, a posttest only experiment with two conditions (CSR l ogo presence condition vs. absence condition) was designed and conducted. Involvement was treated as a measured variable by asking questions about the
12 adopting a national panel company, and finally, a total of 157 subjects across the United States completed the experiment. The results showed that the main effects of the CSR logo were on all the dependent variables, with the exception of the cognitive responses. The result s indicated that the presence of the CSR logo in the annual report was more effective in generating better perceived CSR evaluation, positive attitude toward the corporation, and behavior intention among the subjects than the absence of the CSR logo in the annual report. Regardless of the product involvement level of the subjects, the CSR logo was found to be an effective method for communication and persuasion. However, in terms of generating thought responses, the main effect of the CSR logo was not found Secondly, interaction effects of involvement levels and the CSR logo were not found for all dependent variables. However, the several t tests indicated that the low involvement group was more affected by the CSR logo presence than the high involvement g roup in terms of attitude toward the corporation and behavior intention, while the high involvement group was more affected by the CSR logo in terms of generating thought responses. This study also included theoretical and practical implications and sugges tions for future research
13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background LEED certification plate at the entrance of the buildings in our city, fair trade logo on a coffee package or chocolate bar, USDA logo on fruits and vegetables, and energy star logo on air con remind us of our daily life, but what do they imply? This type of logo (here called corporate social responsibility logo) expresses corporate concern for the environment and society and ind icates that logo carrying products are produced ethically so as to meet the expectations of socially responsible consumers (Bower & Grau, 2009). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) logos may suggest product merit and appeal, create positive feelings towa rd the organization, or just make consumers feel better when they turn on the air conditioner. These logos may in the moment when they see them. This study was inspired daily life. As we could easily testify based on our own daily routines, it seems clear that many organizations are paying attention to socially responsible activities and adopting recognizable logos th at acknowledge their CSR activities on their products and other types of visible items. Following data supports this phenomenon more clearly Prevalence of Corporate Social Responsibility Abundant outcomes have demonstrated the importance of CSR activitie s from both a corporate and a consumer perspective. For example, Kotler and Lee (2005) showed that 90% of Fortune 500 companies have CSR initiatives, and a recent survey
14 conducted by The Economist (2008) revealed that 95% of companies are aware that the pu blic expects them to be socially responsible. Indeed, consumers do pay attention to Research International (MORI) (2004), 46% of European customers said that ally responsible acts might affect their purchasing intention very significantly, and 38% of consumers indicated that they are somewhat influenced by Stakeholders ask corporations to act in a socially responsible manner and also want corporations to communicate with them (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2008; Madrigal & Boush, 2008). According to Cone, Inc. (2010), American consumers are motivated to engage in corporate business practices (85%), products and packaging (83%), and social/ environmental efforts (81%). The Cone research indicated that current Americans (67%) are con fused by CSR information from corporations. Consumers form a favorable attitude toward a company and purchase its products only when they are important for stakeholders (i. e., consumers) to receive clear and accurate messages Corporate Social Responsibility There are various definitions of CSR (Dahlsrud, 2008; Reeves & Ferguson ion to society and the need to meet expectations. In light of this definition, what kind of obligation does a corporation hold, and to whom it is obliged? The object of obligation can be various;
15 from a narrower view to a wider term. Following the economic background, the corporation has a limited obligation, and it benefits society economically. In this view, (Friedman, 1970). However, others argue that corporations shoul d broaden their obligation to surrounding stakeholders such as employees, consumers, and the community. This view is seen as more normative due to the principle that all stakeholders have equal interest in the corporation (Freeman, 1984). Several other sch olars have tried to integrate various views of CSR (Carroll, 1979). Dahlsrud (2008) gathered various definitions of CSR and analyzed them in an attempt to find a more general definition of CSR. The content analysis indicated that there are five dimensions of CSR in existing definitions from literatures and practices: the environmental dimension, the social dimension, the economic dimension, the stakeholder dimension, and the voluntariness dimension. The environmental dimension focuses on the keeping and sav ing of the environment in its practice; the social better society; the economic dimension emphasizes the financial aspect, such as contribution to economic development ; the stakeholder dimension approaches CSR in terms of interacting with its various stakeholders; and lastly, the voluntariness (Dahlsrud, 2008, p. 4). In counting the f requency, Dahlsrud (2008) found the most used definition of CSR, the definition by the Commission of the European Communities (2001): CSR is the free
16 business with the integration of social and e nvironmental care and interact with stakeholders. Several studies attempted to show the effects of CSR. A prominent research trend examines CSR activities related to the attitude and behavior intention of various stakeholders. Reeves and Ferguson DeThorne (1980) measured the effects of CSR messages with three different approaches to CSR among college students. CSR also relates to college students who may become future employees of the firm (Kim & Park, 2009) and it has been tested in different countries suc h as the study Tian, Wang, and Yang (2011) conducted concerning the effects of CSR among Chinese consumers. Liao (1992) tested CSR with four different types of message appeals, and Lin (2005) tested the effects of CSR messages in terms of message sidedness These studies tested CSR in terms of manipulation of message factors. Most studies mentioned above were conducted among college students, but one study (Tian et al. 2011) used a convenient sample. There were no doubts about the studies that adopted a st udent sample for its internal validity; however, it seems that testing CSR activities needs to be done among broader populations for the sake of the development of our field. Increasing Use of CSR Logo and Stakeholder Demand Today, nonprofit organizations and governmental organizations create their own standards and logo and certify external organizations that meet the standard (e.g., USDA logo for organics, fair trade logo). Then, corporations could use the CSR logo in their business practice and communic ation. Eco friendly products, such as organic products, are produced with a view toward a sustainable environment. In this respect, organic products can be considered the socially responsible efforts of corporations and organizations. Increasingly, consume rs are adopting a philosophy of ethical
17 consumption and aiming to purchase ethically produced products. For example, as a result of the growing interest in organics, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) established national standards for orga nics and created a logo for organics in 2002. This logo allows consumers to identify organic products easily (Dimitri & Venezia, 2007). Dimitri and Venezia (2007) found that the increasing consumer interest in organic food led to a demand for organic milk The data revealed that 60% of the organic milk found in supermarkets carries the USDA seal for organics, is sold at a premium price, and is branded. They argued that organic products are attracting cons umers either by using the word organic or including the USDA logo in their marketing. Also, the authors stated that awareness of the USDA logo is growing significantly among consumers (Dimitri & Venezia, 2007). Interestingly, Whole Foods Market (2005) reported that 40% of US consumers recognize the USDA log o for organics. While the USDA logo for organics focuses on environmental issues, another CSR resources and social issues. CSR encompasses not only environmental but also h uman resources and their sustainability. Fair trade falls into this category. Some studies have revealed that, compared with other issues of ethical consumption (e.g., environmental issues), fair trade is considered the most salient (Shaw & Clarke, 1999). Figure 1 1 displays the two types of CSR logo s A CSR logo, due to its easily recognized visual characteristics, can be effective in general is widely used to help consumer
18 (Aaker, 1991; Walsh, 2005); corporations use CSR initiatives to differentiate themselves from their competitors (Becker Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006). In this perspective, CSR is seen as more strategic progra m that corporation attracts consumers. Due to the general logo is considered as brand component (Aaker, 1991), most of studies related with logo have been done with marketing perspectives, however relatively few empirical studies on logos exist in marketin g journals (Kohli Suri, & Thakor 2002; Pittard, Ewing, & Jevons, 2007). A few studies empirically tested the effects of CSR logos such as the effects of Green Seal logo (Board Crighton, Kostka, Spack, & Ivory 2010), Eco labels (Tang Fryxell, & Chow, 2 004), and fair trade logo ( De Pelsmacker, Driesen & Rayp, 2005) and one study did an meta analysis on energy efficiency labels (Banerjee & Solomon, 2003). CSR Logo Based on the Elaboration Likelihood Model An important theoretical framework for this study Systematic Model (HSM). After more than 20 years of plentiful research into understanding ocesses have been identified. First, when members of the public are initially exposed to a certain kind of central routes or process the message using peripheral routes; if they use peripheral routes, factors such as mood, feelings, and other simple cues contribute to their decisions (Petty & Cacciopo, 1986b). The routes are selected depending on personal relevance to the issues in the messages: when the recipient has high p ersonal relevance, they choose central route and elaborate thoughts while processing the information, but when the personal relevance is low, they process the information based
19 on simple cue (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). Based on ELM, central cue or peripheral cue is determined by the amount of thoughts induced by the cue (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). In other words, if the cue generates active thinking, it will be considered as central cue. ELM has been studied in CSR contexts (Liao, 1992; Lin, 2005) an d both studies focused on the message manipulation. Statement of the Problem Generally, previous literature in communication has tended to focus more on testing message content and its effects on attitude and behavior than on testing visual c ontent (Mitche ll, 1986; Wyer Hung, & Jiang, 2008). Mitchell (1986) argued that in reality many persuasive messages such as advertisements include both visual components and verbal components; however, studies using experimental design often stress strong verbal message stimuli. Wyer et al. (2008) also argued that in social and relied upon responses to verbal information alone Even though researchers in consumer psychology realized t he importance of pictures on judgments and used stimuli that contain both pictures and verbal information to test the effects of advertisements, it has not been shown clearly how different types of information affect to decision making process (Wyer et al. 2008). Therefore, the current study makes a meaningful attempt to test how the visual component, specifically the CSR logo, operates differently from verbal cues in the persuasion process. Previous studies regarding the CSR logo and its effects on vario us stakeholders have emphasized logos that relate to environmental concerns. For example, Board et al. (2010) tested the Green Seal logo, Banerjee and Solomon (2003) conducted a me ta analysis of energy efficienc y labels, and Tang et al. (2004) studied eco labels. As Tang
20 et al. Moreover, studies testing other CSR logos, such as the fair trade logo and USDA logo, are scarce in communication and marketing literature; one study has b een conducted by De Pelsmacker et al. to fair trade coffee. Meanwhile, several studies have tested general impacts of CSR programs, including examining the attitude toward CSR activities by pr esenting message factors (Lin, 2005 ; Liao, 1992 ; Reeves & Ferguson DeThorne, 1980). These studies often involved asking participants about their attitude toward products, programs, or purchase intention using message factors, not by testing the CSR logo per se. The impact of fair trade and other types of CSR logos on purchase intention is quite important, especially among ethical consumers; however, this area has not been sufficiently studied ( De Pelsmacker et al. 2005). Therefore, this research is inte nded to scrutinize the effects of CSR logo on stakeholders; these effects have not been evaluated in the existing literature on stakeholder reaction. Purpose of the Study After observing the widespread use of CSR logos in current business practices, the re searcher had questions about the mechanics of these logos. However, relatively few researchers have provided a theoretical background for use of a CSR logo or attempted to analyze how a CSR logo works (that is, influences stakeholders). The present researc h will focus exclusively on testing the CSR logo. Based on the theoretical framework of ELM and HSM, the present research will examine the CSR logo presence and its effects on stakeholder perception. Questions that will guide the present study include:
21 Wil What is the role of the CSR logo and in what circumstances can it affect stakeholder perception?
22 A B Figure 1 1 E xample of CSR l ogos A) Environmental issue CSR logo B) Social issue CSR logo Bird Friendly indicates that the coffee is produced with an effort to protect the environment and not damage trees and migratory birds (Source: http://national zoo.si.edu/scbi/MigratoryBirds/Coffee /default.cfm Last accessed July 2011 ). Fair Trade certified l ogo ( Source: http://www.transfairusa.org Last accessed July, 2011 ) ensures that the product is produced under h igh standards of economic, social, and environmental rules
23 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Corporate Social Responsibility History and Conceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility Corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a concept has been around for a long time since the late 1800s and early 1900s when philanthropy served as the starting point for the concept of CSR (Carroll, 1999, 2010; Clark 2000). Carroll (2010) argued that CSR arose from philanthropy in the late 1800s, but during that time no disti nction was made between benevolence from an individual and benevolence from a corporation. Clark (2000) noted that charity was an early form of CSR in the early 1900s and said that philanthropy was practiced by rich individuals, not by corporations. Murphy labeled the time earlier than 1950 as the philanthropic era During the 1950s, CSR was defined as an obligation to society (Bowen, 1953; Maignan & Ferrell, 2004). Bowen was an early scholar who developed the concept of Father of (Carroll, 1999 p. 270 ). Frederick (2006) stated that three ideas explained CSR in the 1950s: management as trustee, balance of power, and philanthropy. Specifically, corporate managers themselves act as public trustees, so they should care about public interests and balance corporate resources and powers. Because this period was the starting point of talk about the concept of CSR, Murphy (1978) called this period the awareness era. In the 1960s, discussion of CSR increa sed and grew mainly through social movement) (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Broader views on obligations and relationships
24 between the corporation and society were developed in the literature of this time (Carroll, 2010). Carroll introduced Davis (1960), who explained the two obligations of the corporation: Promote economic values and promote human values. Davis (1960) argued that businesses possess power in society; when busine sses behave responsibly according to their power, they will maintain their power in society and, if not, they will employee improvements (working conditions, industrial relati ons, personnel policies), In the 1970s, the idea of CSR as a strategic tool for corporate economic growth to (1970) view increase profits as much as possible for as many stakeholders as possible using legal and ethical practices. During this period, many businesses were responding to social problems t hat they themselves had caused (Clark, 2000; Murphy, 1978; Wood, 1991). These responses seemed to arise in answer to society, which had asked businesses to do something about the problems they had created and, in some cases, even forced them to take action (Wood, 1991). Murphy (1978) called this time the responsive era. uld be fulfilled (e.g., those of employees, customers, suppliers, the community). In the 1990s and 2000s, corporate citizenship became the major discussion among scholars (Carroll, 2010). McWilliams, Siegel, and Wright (2006) stated that
25 notable theories of the 1990s included the stewardship theory and the institutional theory, in addition to an extension of stakeholder theory. In the early 2000s, the theory of the firm was developed (McWilliams et al., 2006). The theory of the firm perspective suggests st rategic CSR such as CSR activities that could either bring benefit or competitive advantage to the corporation or attract consumers. In this view, CSR activities are seen as calculable, so a firm could find the appropriate level of CSR activities (McWillia ms et al., 2006). Perhaps most interesting was that during this time the scope of CSR was enlarged to the global level. Frederick (2008) stated that the (p. 527). Frederi ck (2008) commented on the m eaning of corporate citizenship: of civil society: to obey the law, contribute to the commonweal, participate in governance, and demonstrate Corporations today find that the solutions to ever more complicated problems consist of long term sustainability; cooperative dialogue with stakeholders, governments, and non governmental organizations; and respect for global codes of conduct (Frederick, 2008). Definition of Corporate Social Responsibility Corporate social responsibility has evolved throughout history and various approaches have been taken toward its definition. In the public relations area, Carroll (1979) defined CSR by outlining the range of obligations that corporations have to society. Those obligations we re divided into four categories: has core economic responsibilities to create goods and services and to sell them for the
26 creation of profit. Second, society asks businesses to act according to laws and regulations while performing their economic responsibilities. Third, society expects regulations. Fourth, discretionary responsibilities involve voluntary CSR corporate he social responsibility of business encompass[ing] the economic, legal, ethical, and 500). Carroll (1991) also developed the pyramid of corporate social responsibi lities (p.42) 2008; Schwartz & Carroll, 20 03; Tian et al. 2011). Later the four domains were modified, and finally three domains remain: the economic domain, the legal domain, and the ethical domain. These three domains are equally important and are related to each other, as modeled in a Venn diagram. Wood (1991) defined CSR with three levels: institutional, organizational, and individual. One important argument associated with thi s view is that the responsibility of the business is only limited to causes that arise through business activity (Wood, 1991). Specific explanation of this perspective is provided later in the corporate social performance (CSP) model. Defining universal C SR is difficult due to the various approaches to this concept (Dahlsrud, 2008; Garriga & Mel, 2004; Liao, 1992; Reeves & Ferguson DeThorne, 1980). To further define CSR, additional discussion of theories of CSR is necessary Theories of CSR Corporate soci al responsibility theories can be categorized as ethical responsibility theory, economic responsibility theory, and corporate citizenship (Windsor, 2006). First,
27 ethical CSR theories have three key values (Windsor, 2006): wide acceptance of public policy s upporting stakeholders, business operations that include powerful self restraint, and altruism. Altruism is based on voluntary activities of the corporation to provide benefits to society and its stakeholders, and self ce to behave morally and implement appropriate policies where no regulations exist. Second, economic CSR theories argument emphasizing a minimalist public policy; within that environment, businesses create maximum profits, which in turn enhances the welfare of the whole society. This view tends to reject voluntary responsible activities of corporations (Windsor, 2006). Third, the notion of corporate citizenship came from a political metaphor and argued that corporation has both du ties and rights in society similar to individual citizens. Here, philanthropy is considered to be a strategic lever that creates a positive reputation and provides market opportunities. Other scholars have categorized CSR theories slightly differently than Windsor (2006). Garriga and Mel (2004) categorized CSR theories into the following four types: instrumental theories, political theories, integrative theories, and ethical theories. First, eories. Here, the corporation is considered to be a profit activity is accepted if, and only if, it is consistent with wealth c Garriga & Mel 2004, p. 51). Political theories, the second category, suggest that corporations have Third, integrative theories argue that corporations shoul d respond and fulfill social
28 Garriga & Mel 2004, p. 52). Fourth, ethical theories ety. Based on previous literature reviews, Mel (2008) pinpointed four CSR theories performance, shareholder value theory, stakeholder theory, and corporate citizenship th eory. The current research will review these four major theories of CSR in the context of previously mentioned CSR theory categories. Corporate Social Performance Corporate social performance (CSP) is an integrative theory that focuses on social demand. G arriga and Mel (2004) and Wartick and Cochran (1985) argued that in integrative theories, corporations recognize and respond to social demands in exchange for legitimacy and prestige in society. Carroll (1979) is considered the pioneer of CSP (Garriga & M el, 2004; Mel 2008) because he introduced the CSR model that embraces the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary categories of business performance. Carroll (1979) incorporated the three dimensions of social responsibility, social responsiveness, a nd social issues. Wartick and Cochran (1985) developed the principles of social responsibility, the process of social responsiveness and the policies 767). developed C
29 responsibility is that business and society are interwoven rather than distinct entities; therefore, society has certain expectations for appropriate business behavior and The first component in the CSP model involves three levels of CSR. The corporation receives its legitimacy and power from society (Wood, 1991) based on view that corporations with power will loose that power if they do not act in a socially responsible manner. This is the institution level principle that provides organizational level that takes into consideration the particular environment of the corpora tion. Wood (1991) stated that this is the basis for the Preston and Post (1975) view that business is responsible only for the area or society to which it belongs. In addition, business is responsible only for any negative consequences that result from its activities, not all problems of society (Wood, 1991). The third level of corporate social argued that: According to the principle of managerial discretion, the individual 's right and responsibility to decide and to act are affirmed within the bounds of economic, legal, and ethical constraints. This principle is based on human choice and will, focusing on the options and opportunities available to individual actors within t heir organizational and institutional contexts (p. 700) it prescribes the ways to act and fills the gap between normative CSR and business practice. Wood (1991) stated that s social responsiveness: the capability of a business to reply to social demand. She
30 pointed out that the term social responsiveness does not replace CSR, but operates as an action driven term. Corporati ons should scan and monitor the environment to adapt to changing society. In addition, they must identify their stakeholders, build relationships with them, and constantly engage in issue management, which requires identifying issues, analyzing them, and d eveloping a response (Wood, 1991). as social programs and social policies. Corporations often have negative social impacts on society (e.g., pollution) and, to reduce/resolve these impacts, they create programs like one time sponsorship of certain events and cause related marketing; they also set policy to address these impacts when issues are repeated or important (Wood, 1991). All in one, CSP is an integrative theory that enc ompasses the normative view of CSR, it activities, and t he outcomes of those activities Corporate Citizenship Theory Corporate citizenship theory derives from political theory (Garriga & Mel, 2004; Mel, 2008). In this view, corporations have both right s and duties, just like individuals in society (Wood & Logsdon their communities, such as philanthropic activities, should be considered good citizenship (Mel, 2008; Wood & Logsdon 2002). Alth ough there slight different responsibility toward the local community, partnerships, which are the specific ways of formalizing the willingness to improve the local com munity, and for consideration for the ( Logsdon & Wood 2002, p. 158). Windsor (2006) argued that corporate citizenship
31 appears to reconcile economic theories and ethics theories; however, it is not the middle ground between them. As Logsdon and Wood (2002) mentioned, citizenship can be divided into instrumental, communitarian, and universa l rights approaches. The first is rooted in a minimalist view that prioritizes individual liberty. Here, the corporation as citizen may perform for maximization of shareholder profits and self interest. The based upon common historical individual citizens playing a significant role in society (e.g., solving community problems, providing welfare). In addition, corporate citizens hip involves different subsets of elements that are exclusive to each other. Universal rights approaches are essential to contemporary global corporations (Mel, 2008). The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasized equal treatment for all human beings and established common meanings for certain rights ( Logsdon & Wood 2002). Ideal corporate citizenship directs managers to respect universal human rights over regulations that affect the business (Windsor, 2006) Shareholder Value Theory According to Garriga and Mel ( 2004 ), instrumental theories generally have three objectives: maximization of shareholder value, implementation of strategic goals in the market, and use of cause related marketing. Shareholder value theory is an instrumental theory and an economic CSR theory (Windsor, 2006). As the theory name indicates, shareholder benefit is the most important goal of the corporation and socially responsible activities are used when they are known to return profit to the company (Garriga & Mel, 2004; Mel, 2008). Friedman (1970) is the one researcher who defends this view of CSR (Garriga & Mel, 2004; Mel, 2008); Friedman famously said
32 and engage in acti vities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without contribution to society occ urs because of tax deductions; provision of facilities or education programs is the result of a calculation of costs (e.g., reducing damage to corporate property or hiring costs) that may appeal to employees (Friedman, 1970). Even though shareholder value theory seems to consider both long term profits and short term profits, in reality it seems to be oriented toward short term profits (i.e., stock price) (Garriga & Mel, 2004 ). Stakeholder Theory Garriga and Mel (2004) put stakeholder theory among ethical theories whose ssity to achieve a good society (p. 60). Freeman (1984) brought the idea of stakeholder theory into the strategic management arena. He argued that managers of corporations have a fiduciary du ty to stakeholders, not just a responsibility to shareholders. He said that management should satisfy de shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, communities, and others affecting or affected by the corporation (Freeman, 1984). Donaldson and Preston (1995) viewed stakeholder theory as a normative theory. They proposed that corporations follow two pri nciples: (a) intrinsic value so that businesses must consider each stakeholder
33 [E]ach group of stakeholders merits consideration for its own sake and not merely because of its ability to further the interests of some other group, such (Donaldson & Preston, 1995, p. 67). Stakeholder theory is based on Kantian philosophy (Bowie, 1991; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Evan & Freeman, 1988). Bowie (1991) argued that business must act as stakeholders would both create the rules that that both corporations and all stakeholders must observe their duties and create corresponding relationships (Bowie, 1991). Conce ptual Basis of the Study le that a corporation is a moral entity in society in which all stakeholders set the rules and regulate them. The study of measuring social responsibility messages by Reeves and Ferguson DeThorne (1980) saw social responsibilit ccurring on a continuu m with the Adam Smith Free Enterprise view at one end, and the Business Government Cooperation view at the other end. Central to th According to the first view, a corporation that focuses its practice on profit max imization is seen as a Free Enterprise that has an obligation to stockholders. However, when a business is considered a Good Citizen, it considers the input of broader stakeholders in society beyond the shareholder. Lastly, within the Leader view, a corpor ation solves social problems and accepts government regulations for the
3 4 betterment of society. The result indicated that the second view, which incorporates stakeholders, was the most positively considered by participants. Similar to the second view, stake holder theories argue that the corporation has moral relations with various stakeholders. It does not, however, act through a one way direction from corporations, outlined as stak eholder has reciprocal duties with others. Thus, if an employee has a duty of loyalty In other words, consumers or other stakeholders also have obligations to corporat ions. For example, consumers buy or subscribe the products or services from corporations that create environmentally friendly products. Other stakeholders are the same they should not just want a company to practice in a socially responsible manner, but th ey also need to support CSR by consuming socially responsible products, investing in the corporations and so on. The present study measures specifically the effects of CSR logos that are widely adopted in the product packages, printed message, and display websites. On one hand, placing a CSR logo on a product could be seen as a strategic action to create the market advantage. However, this is not the only purpose of CSR logos. As Bowie (1991) argued, a corporation behaves socially re sponsibly with its stakeholders in two way direction. By presenting logos, the corporation provides duties. When stakeholders respond to the CSR activities, relationships between corporations and stakeholders became mutual and maintained (Bowie, 1991). Moreover, environmentalists another stakeholder of the business should ask
35 consumers to buy socially responsible products. The following statement made by Bowie (1991) concl udes this view: If environmentalists want businesses to produce products that are more friendly to the environment, they must convince Americans to purchase them. Businesses will respond to the market. It is the consuming public that has the obligation to make the trade off between cost and environmental integrity (p. 62) Empirical Studies of CSR Probably one of the earliest studies in measuring the effects of CSR messages was conducted by Reeves and Ferguson DeThorne (1980). The study specifically tested the influence of CSR messages as a form of annual report for public relations pr epared based on the CSR types: (a ) profit social responsibility is achieved when corpo rations facilitate economic system and maximize profits; (b ) good citizen this CSR approach considers many groups in society; and (c ) leader corporations are responsibl e activities (Reeves & Ferguson DeThorne, 1980). Each approach was randomly distributed among students. The result of this study indicated that the good citizen approach generated most favorable attitudes, while the profit approach was the least favorable. Tian et al. (2011) found that, when Chinese consumers have a high level of awareness and trust of CSR, they are likely to have positive attitudes toward the corporation and product and demonstrate more purchase intention than consumers with low CSR inform ation and trust. In addition, they found that specific product categories showed more positive response of CSR activities by the consumer: experience products
36 (e.g., automobiles) received more positive product association and intention to buy among consume rs than search and credence products. Experience products are those that are purchased and used by the consumers throughout this process, and the consumer gains information on the product and determines the quality (Nelson, 1970). In short, product informa products. However, searching products are those about which the consumer learns the quality before purchasing. Credence products are products that do not easily reveal their quality before and after consumers purchase and experience them. Kim & Park (2009) found that CSR is a crucial factor for recruiting future employees. A 2 (corporate ability: good vs. poor) X 2 (CSR: good vs. poor) between subjects experiment was conducted among college students. Here, corporate ability the community. The findings suggested that, when the CSR re cord is good, students are more likely to response that their personal ethic is highly fitted with the corporation and showed more positive activity and intention to apply than in the case of no CSR condition. Typically, CSR is a crucial factor when corpor ations are low in ability. Marketing literature, considers CSR to be one of the brand dimensions (Madrigal & Boush, 2008). In the Madrigal and Boush (2008) study, consumers who were reportedly more willing to reward a corporation showed more positive atti tudes toward the product, advertisement, and brand when a CSR message was embedded in the condition. They
37 Cause related marketing (CRM), a common CSR activity in the economic theories, has been studied since its first appearance in 1983 (Nan & Heo, 2007). CRM typically is considered a CSR practice, in marketing literature (Kotler & Lee, 2005). CRM highly because its purpose is to advocate a specific cause through promises to make corporate donations to that cause based on products sold (Kotler & Lee, 2005). Nan and Heo said that, generally, consumers show positive & Mohr, 1998), perceive such corporations as being more responsible (Ross, Patterson, & Strutts, 1992), and are willing to purchase products made by CRM corporations (Smith & Alcorn, 1991). In their experimental study, Nan and Heo (2007) found that no matt er the level of fit, advertising messages containing CRM generate a more positive attitude toward the company, regardless of the brand or message, than does an advertising message without a CRM statement. In that sense, CRM messages in advertisements are h elpful in creating positive attitudes toward the corporations that use them. Role of CSR L ogo in Persuasion Definition of Logo Generally a logo was defined by Bennett (1995) as a visual object that identifies an organization or brand and researches on lo gos were from marketing literatures. identity that are designed to convey an organization identity to its members and to logo is a brand element, which is of the erich, & Mittal, 2010, p. 76). In another view, a logo is a identity from that of other companies
38 (Bennett, 1995; Giberson & Hulland, 1994; Henderson & Cote; 1998). Many scholars have agreed that a logo is not only a key comp onent of brand identity (Kohli et al. 2002; Pittard et al., 2007), but also an important p art of the communication process for organizations (Kohli et al., 2002). Walsh (2005) also argued that, with a logo, a brand differentiates itself from others and affects consumer choice. In particular, the graphic aspect of a logo gives it the benefit of overcoming language barriers and making products capable of moving beyond national markets (Kohli et al., 2002). According to Kohli et al. (2002), a logo carries two advantages: First, its visual character is associated with the name and increases memora bility and speed of recognition; second, a logo can replace the name and can be used as an alternative when time and space are limited. Also, a logo represents quality assurance and assists consumers in their purchase decisions. A fair amount of literatur e, particularly from the marketing perspective, indicates that a logo is a key component of brand equity and can therefore influence making processes (Keller, 2009; Zakia & Nadin, 1987; Snyder, 1993; Henderson & Cote; 1998). For exam ple, Keller (2009) pointed out that symbols and logos are core components of a brand and can help to embody abstract concepts or the core values of a product. Snyder (1993) considered the logo to be a signature of the company and product. Henderson and Cot e (1998) also claimed that designing and developing an appropriate logo is a key factor in building a corporate image. However, these marketing studies mainly focused on the effectiveness of logo use (i.e., Keller, 2009; Henderson & Cote, 1998) and failed to fully illustrate its process and implications of logos, although Zakia and Nadin (1987) briefly mentioned the importance
39 of using a logo for both internal and external stakeholders as a part of communication. All in one, previous logo literatures are ta lking about logo as a brand component, which creates unique identity of a corporations/brand and strategic emphasis on the use of logo. Corporations strategically use logos in their marketing communication and put great effort into creating their own logo; however, relatively few empirical studies on logos exist in marketing journal s (Kohli et al., 2002; Pittard et al. 2007), and hardly any can be found in communication journals. The lack of logo studies in communication area is quite understood due to the logo was originally seen as marketing strategies or brand identity concept. However, when it comes to the CSR logo, it may be different from the general brand logo. Few researchers started to enlighten of CSR logo studies, recently (Board et al., 2010; Ba ner jee & Solomon, 2003; Tang et al. 2004; De Pelsmacker et al. 2005). The one major reason for the lack of study in this area may be that the wide use of CSR logos has only recently been adopted in current practice. It was not until 2002 that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) first created its official logo and certified organic products, as the demand for organic foods had grown. Since then, other types of CSR certified organizations have been established to provide CSR certification to manufacturers (e.g., Bird Friendly, California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance, Demeter USA, Fair Trade, FishWise, Food Alliance, Forest Stewardship Council, Marine Stewardship Council, Rainforest Alliance, Salmon Safe). The second reason is that this phe nomenon is derived from practice not theory, so not many scholars in academia have expressed interest in this topic. A few studies have been conducted from the marketing perspective (e.g., effects of fair trade logo), but not from the perspective of commun ication targeting stakeholders. However, the CSR logo
40 is not solely intended to enhance product sales; it may also be used as a means of communication to inform stakeholders about CSR initiatives. The present study would contribute to the current CSR logo studies development by discovering underlining logic of CSR logo practice that is driven from practice phenomenon Definition of CSR Logo in Third Party Organization Endorsement Theory Due the nature of exploratory studies on the CSR logo, the CSR logo is not clearly defined in previous literatures. The concept of a CSR logo in current research is similar to that of a seal of approval in third party endorsement theory. Third party organization (TPO) endorsements are widely used in communication (Dean & Bi swas, 2001). Dean and Biswas (2001) argued that TPO advertisement is effective because it pinpoints the quality of the product with the high credibility of a third party. There are three types of TPO endorsement: representational ranking of the products th at is higher than the competitor, a seal confirmed by TPO, and an appraisal statement based on self evaluation of the product traits (Dean & Biswas, 2001). Among them, the most visually distinctive type is the seal of approval when the TPO logo is used as the visualized seal on the product or in a message that captures customer attention (Dean & Biswas, 2001). In addition, a seal of approval often is used by the concept from licensing agreements that means corporations are allowed to use (Daw, 20 06, p. 80). Most importantly, a seal of approval is a sign that the product has passed standards set by the endorsing organization and is recommended (Daw, 2006).
41 Based on this concepts, a CSR logo will be defined as: (a ) A visualized logo of an endorsing organization that is independent f rom the endorsed organization; (b ) A logo given when the corporation has passed certain standards of t he endorsing organization; and (c) M eeting standards based on social responsibility concepts, so it advocates various st environmental safety and other societal concerns, fr om an independent organization. In par ticular, in a CSR context, several companies have adopted the third party endorsement concept for use in their CSR initiatives (Bower & Grau, 2009). Kamins and Mark s (1991) revealed that third positive prod uct evaluation and pu rchase intention. For example, the pink ribbon bonus points to the Susan G. Komen breast cancer foundation (Bank of America, 2010) based on an assumptio n that CSR initiatives lead to a favorable attitude toward Brown and Dacin (1997) argued that CSR associations have an impact on corporate evaluation, which in turn affects product evaluation. In their stud y of corporate associations (i.e., corporate image), Brown and Dacin (1997) examined two types of corporate associations: corporate ability, defined as the competence of a corporation to produce and deliver products, and service and corporate social respon sibility. While they found that corporate ability affect ed perceptions of product and corporate eva luation, CSR association only affected the overall corporate evaluation and through that indirectly affected to product evaluation On the other hand, Firewo rker and
42 Friedman (1977) argued that endorsements by experts, celebrities, and consumers greatly influence the overall attitude toward products and expected price, but not purchase in tention Empirical Studies of Logo Jun, Cho, and Kwon (2008) conducted a study on the corporate visual identity (CVI) of a logo; specifically, they examined the role of affect and cognition of consumers for the CVI logo in different countries. The results confirmed that affect and cognition are the two main factors associated w ith use of a CVI logo; these two factors are influencing the attitude toward the CVI logo, and CVI logo attitude influences attitude toward the company, which subsequently influences purchase intention (Jun et al 2008). Also, purchase intention is direct ly influenced by attitude toward the CVI logo. The researchers concluded that the CVI logo is important because it directly and indirectly influences attitude toward the company and purchase intention. Studies have tested the effect of logo presence in sev eral contexts (e.g., religious symbols, green imagery, brand logos) ( T able 2 1). Taylor, Halstead, and Haynes (2010) conducted experimental research to test religious symbols, and their results showed that for a non student sample, those who have religiou s beliefs were highly influenced by the symbol. Another study on religious symbols and product fit, conducted by Henley Philhours, Ranganathan, & Bush (2009), reported that religious symbols with relevant product fits are more favorable in terms of attitu de toward the advertisement, attitude toward the brand, and purchase intention than religious symbols with low product fits. Stafford, Tripp, and Bienstock (2004) conducted a survey on logo attractiveness, theatrical performance, and perception of the org anization. Their results demonstrated
43 that significant correlations exist among perceived image of logo, perception of an organization, and logo attractiveness. In addition, the experimental study conducted by Henderson and Cote (1998) regarding logo recog nition, meaning, and perceived familiarity provided an analysis of ways to create an effective logo and categorized the characteristics necessary in logo development. More specifically, they suggested three recognition of recognition, logos should have a high degree of natural and harmonious characteristics and moderate elaboration. These high recogn ition logos are suggested for organizations that have many resources, while low investment logos can be used by organizations with fewer resources. High image logos create highly positive images of the organizations, and elaboration should be slightl y high (Henderson & Cote, 1998) Empirical Studies of CSR L ogo Board et al. (2010) conducted a study to test the effects of argument strength and the green product and their purchase intention. Specifically, they measured credibility of t he product package, product environmental friendliness, attitude toward the product, and purchase intention. The study was designed as a 3 (argument strengths: strong, weak, or no argument) X 2 (visual component: present or absent) factorial experiment and used prepared stimuli about a laundry detergent product packaging. Findings indicated that a strong argument was effective in increasing credibility, product greenness, and attitude. However, in terms of purchase intention, both weak and strong arguments influenc e on purchase intention. Board et al. (2010) concluded that just presenting a
44 green argument or logo is effective to influence purchasing intention with consumers who seem to discount the quality of argument or credibility of logo. Banerjee and Solomon (2003) conducted a meta analysis on the energy efficiency labeling which was introduced in the United States. They argued that the labeling system is not new in business, but the encouraging use of labels in terms of sustainability is recent. They analyzed the Green Seal, Scientific Certification System, energy guide, energy star, and green e labels based on consumer and business response. The findings indicated that government su pported programs such as the energy guide and energy star had more credibility, were economically supported, and had been in long term practice compared to private labels. The analysis pointed out that consumers tend to prefer simple logos over complex inf ormation of approval labels are usually better understood by consumers than information disclosure labels. While seal of approval labels may be oversimplified and judgmental, experience has shown that the proportion of informed consumer s who are willing and able to use reason that even though the energy guide label is widely adopted, the energy star label is considered preferable among consumers (Banerje e & Solomon, 2003) (Figure 2 1). Tang et al. (2004) studied the effects of the visual and verbal component of the eco vs. absence) X 2 (verbal cue presence vs. absence) exper iment in the context of online shopping in a college student sample. Here, they used the visual logo as it contains a visual component and sometimes abstract words that do not foster meaning. Verbal cue means that the logo contains a meaningful word or phr ase. They found two main effects
45 of visual cue logo and verbal cue logo on purchase intention. Also, presentation of both visual and verbal cues was the most powerful predictor of purchase intention (Tang et al. 2004). This study simply confirmed the effe purchase intention De Pelsmacker et al. fair trade coffee among 800 Belgians. In this study, the fair trade logo (presence vs. absence), brand (market leader vs. private), blending (100% Arabica or mixed), package tone (warm vs. cold), and flavor (mocha, dessert, decaffeinated) were manipulated. Here, fair trade includes both social responsibility and environmental concerns of the business. The results indicated th at brand was considered the most important attribute in purchasing behavior, followed by the fair trade logo and flavor. They measured purchase intention and the results indicated that about 10% of the survey participants would pay for coffee with an avera ge premium. Theoretical and Methodological Background Logo in the Dual Process Model Focusing on the importance of logo use, another theoretical framework of this examined an i process model. Perloff (2010) provided a clear explanation on the term elaboration and likelihood used in ELM: Elaboration refers to the extent to which the individual thinks about or mentally modifies ar guments contained in the communication. Likelihood, referring to the probability that an event will occur, is used to point out the fact that elaboration c an be either likely or unlikely. (p. 130)
46 Petty and Cacioppo (1986a) indicated that it is necessary t o understand the exact communication process by which a message influences attitude. Examining the concept of ELM, Petty and Cacioppo (1981) demonstrated that the persuasion process could take two different routes: central or peripheral. The central route can be explained by cognitive elabora tion likelihood is high (Petty et al. 1983). This route of persuasion occurs when individuals rely on the central or cognitive component, such as an argument, an issue, or a person. When people focus on the information centrally, they are affected by message arguments, the characteristics of ideas, and their prior knowledge and values (Perloff, 2010). However, when people have relatively low involvement (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986b), they will use the peripheral route, focu sing on change because of the presence of simple positive or negative cues, or beca use of the invocation of simple decision rules which obviate the need for thinking about issue relev 1983). Here, Petty and Cacioppo (1981) accepted a general view of involvement and tions, the persuasive message under consideration has a high degree of personal relevance to the recipient, whereas in low They argued that involvement (or personal r elevance as synonym) is an essential factor for changing attitude by utilizing either the central or peripheral process route; however, this is not the only factor that affects the persuasion process (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). In addition to involvement, th
47 issue one has high involve ment and motivation to process a certain message, if the message is too complex or generates distractions, then one would not process using the central route. The heuristic systematic model (HSM) (Chaiken, 1980; Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989) is anothe r process model of persuasion that complements the ELM two processing 1989, p. 212) whereby persuasion occurs. In the HSM, systematic and heuristic modes replace the concept of central and peripheral routes of the ELM. According to Chaiken et al. comprehensive, analytic orientation in which perceivers access and scrutinize all informational input for its relevance and importance to their judgment task, and integrate The heuristic mode, another processing mode of HSM, is processing that does not require much thinking effort (Chaiken et al. 1989). Here, recei vers often pay attention to e and make a decision (Chaiken et al., 1989). researcher argued that the heuristic processing is based on previous experience and stored memory and these should be activated and accessible (Chaiken, 19 80; Chaiken et al. 1989).
48 Different from the ELM, the HSM emphasizes that the heuristic and systematic processing modes may not coincide at all times (Chaiken et al., 1989). More specifically, when people are motivated and able to process messages system atically, heuristic cues will be less important for the receivers; however, they still use the heuristic cues as extra information to check the validity of the message Issue/Product I nvolvement Definition Leippe and Elkin (1987) argued that there are two different involvements that affect persuasion. One is called issue involvement, and the other is response involvement. Issue involvement was typically used in Petty and Cacioppo (1980, 1986b) ELM study. Petty and Cacioppo (1979) and Petty et al. (1983) us ed the term issue or the attitude issue or the product itself has some direct personal relevance or consequence, Pe tty et al., 1983, p. 136). Here, high personal relevance will induce a central route of thinking; meanwhile, when personal relevance is low, participants will take a peripheral route in processing a message. In their study, they manipulated product involve ment by introducing either a razor (high involvement) or toothpaste (low involvement). Petty et al. (1983) argued that when product involvement is high, people are more likely engage in a cognitive process to examine the central merits of a product. In oth er words, the high involvement group uses a central route to process the message. 1989). J ohnson and Eagly (1989) suggested that it is seen as outcome relevant involvement, because issue involvements often manipulate the consequences of the
49 sample, if subje cts were told that their university policy would change next year, this would have a significant impact on their academic lives, so they would have high involvement. responses to the develop the reactions (i.e., attitudes) toward the object with knowledge of the results to be made available for others who might judge them (Gotlieb & Sarel, 1991; Joh n son & Eagly, 1989; Le ippe & Elkin, 1987). Response involvement is increased when the told that they would discuss the issue all together (Chaiken, 1980). Leippe and Elkin (1987) stated that motivated involvement is one type of issue involvement that arises when the participants have no prior attitude toward an object. Soon, the participants think that it is essential for them to create an attitude toward the object following, congruent with their personal values. The current study adopted ELM as its methodological framework, the concept of issue involvement/product involvement was used for the term involvement Logo as a Peripheral Cue Applying this dual process of persuasion, therefore, a lo go in general would be classified as a peripheral rather than a central cue since logos and symbols give people a sign of value and emotional significance (Perloff, 2010) and transfer abstract meanings to certain products (Goldman & Papson, 1996). The trad itional logo effect is considered to be the peripheral cue in the advertising literature, as well (Jun et al., 2008). However, there are some arguments that the role of logo should be considered
50 differently depending on the components of the logo (Bone and France, 2001; Jun et al., 2008). Bone and France (2001) who differentiated the graphical component containing information (i.e., nutrition label) from peripheral cues argued that logos containing pictures are considered as a peripheral cue. Jun et al. (20 08) argued a CVI logo that contains pictorial components were considered as peripheral cue that lead less cognitive thought process. The present study revisited traditional ELM literatures and found critical points that support the argument that logos ca n evoke the peripheral route of the thinking process. Petty et al. (1983) emphasized in their study of ELM that central and peripheral cues are importantly, they argued that t he forms of stimuli (e.g., visual vs. verbal) should not be blindly interpreted as central/peripheral cues. An important point to create the that a person feels is central to the true merits of an issue or product (Petty et al., 19 8 3 p. 144). Following this, a logo that is clearly different from messages, is considered as peripheral cue due to its graphical components and simplified information The Effects of Invo lvement on Persuasion Petty and Cacioppo (1979) reported two experiments to confirm that involvement results of the process. In the first experiment, involvement levels (h igh vs. low) and message directions (proattitudinal vs. counterattitudinal) were manipulated to find the interaction effects. Here they found that proattituninal messages affect attitude and increase cognitive processes among the high involvement group: Th e high involvement group generated fewer counterarguments and more favorable thoughts regarding the
51 proattitudinal message. For the low involvement group, message direction had no significant effects on the cognitive process, including the amount of counte rarguments and favorable thoughts. In the second experiment, involvement (high vs. low) and argument quality (strong vs. weak) interaction effects were tested. Here, strong arguments affected the cognitive process of the high involvement group: The group g enerated more favorable thoughts and fewer counterarguments. Again, for the low Petty and Cacioppo (1979) concluded that non message cues such as attractiveness or ex pertise will significantly affect a low (p. 1924) will be effective f or high involvement conditions involvement cond ition can activate more thoughts when the message presents cogent and convincing content. However, it did not specifically demonstrate how the low involvement group is affected by peripheral cues (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). Another study conducted by Petty a nd Cacioppo (1981) drew more attention to the effects of peripheral cues. Here three independent variables were manipulated: involvement (high vs. low), argument quality (strong vs. weak), and credibility of source (high vs. low). While they found the main effects of three independent variables, they also found interaction effects. For the high personal involvement group, argument quality played a distinctive role on attitude, while the effects of credibility were trivial. For the low personal involvement g roup, however, source credibility significantly influenced persuasion, and the quality of argument had little impact. Later, another experiment was conducted with a product advertisement, specifically, an advertisement for shampoo.
52 Here four independent va riables were manipulated: product involvement, quality of message, source attractiveness, and sex of respondent. The findings suggested that argument quality is a significant factor for attitude toward the message in the high involvement group. However, th e results did not reveal significant effects of source attractiveness for the low involvement group. The researchers reasoned that this was because the source in the advertisement might be seen as a strong argument, especially in a shampoo ad. Petty et al. (1983) conducted an experiment with manipulation of involvement, argument quality, and endorsers. The results showed that endorsers had greater effects involvement condition, while argument quality significantly influe involvement condition. When strong arguments were presented, participants were more willing to buy the product. Argument quality had an impact on behavior intention, and this provided some evidence that attitude cre ated in the high involvement condition better predicts behavior intention than attitude created in the low involvement condition. Petty and Cacioppo (1984) again confirmed the main effects of argument quality and found two interaction effects: (a) involve ment and number of arguments and (b) involvement and quality of argument. For a low involvement group, the number of arguments greatly affected attitude toward the message. Opposite results were found for a high involvement group: The quality of the messag e was a more important factor than quantity. Chaiken (1980) conducted two experiments based on HSM. In the first, source likable (vs. unlikable), number of arguments (two or six), involvement (high vs. low), and
53 topic (trimester vs. sleep) were manipula ted. Here, involvement manipulation was achieved in terms of response involvement by telling the participants that they would discuss the same topic later (for high involvement group). Or the low involvement group was told it would discuss a different topi c. The researchers found the main effects of communicator likability, number of arguments, and topics. Likable communicator, six involvement groups were more influenced by the six arguments, while less influenced by the likability of the communicator; low involvement groups were impacted more by a likable source, but uninfluenced by the quantity of the argument. Additionally, high involvement groups reported more recall, wrote message related thoughts, and took more time to read the message than low involvement group (Chaiken, 1980). with unlikable communi cator vs. one argument with likable communicator) x 2 (issue involvement: high vs. low). Issue involvement was manipulated by telling students that the university policy would change soon (high involvement) or later (low involvement). The result indicated that for high issue involvement group, five arguments with an unlikable communicator stimuli affected opinion change more than one argument with a likable communicator; however, the result was the opposite with the low issue involvement grou p. Chaiken (198 0) argued that (a ) a high involvement condition persuasion; and (b ) a low involvement condition promotes the heuristic processing mode in which an economic decision rule is used in persuasion
54 Effects of Involvement in CSR Context Liao (1992) tested the effects of CSR messages with four types of message donation to an adu lt literacy program. Also, the message involvement level was measured and divided into high vs. low based on mean score. The results indicated that message appeal has a significant effect, which means that the stronger the message appeal, the more positive the attitude formed. The second hypothesis was that a higher message involvement group would create a more positive attitude than a lower involvement group. Here, the involvement was not manipulated; it was just measured by the researcher through question of the second hypothesis that in a weak message appeal condition, the highly involved group reported a more positive score than the less involved group regarding the altruistic contribution. The stu dy also provided information about what the public prefers with regard to business CSR activities; top ranked were providing a good work environment, producing a good quality product and service, and protecting the environment, while supporting culture and art was less preferred. Lin (2005) tested the CSR campaign message effects in terms of message sidedness (one sided, refutational two sided, and nonrefutational two sided) and the corporation and how participants perceived the CSR activity. Here, she found main effects of message sidedness: A one sided message is more effective than other types p erception of the CSR activity. Because there has been scant research that has tested
55 CSR message effects in ELM, the research is considered worthy as an effort to illuminate a new topic area. Bezencon and Blili (2010) tested an involvement measure with eth ical products and consumer involvement (i.e., ethical consumption) and behavior intention. They divided involvement into two concepts: involvement in products and involvement in ethical consumption. They found that product involvement (i.e., love of coffee ) does not influence ethical buying choice (i.e., purchase of fair trade coffee). Rather, they found that high involvement in ethical consump tion is a predictor of behavior Hypotheses Various researches have been conducted on the effect of a logo in diff erent contexts (e.g., corporate logos, religious logos, CSR logos) in a message (Henley et al., 2009; Jun et al., 2008; Taylo r et al. 2010). Jun et al. (2008) found that the visual corporate identity logo was important for purchase intention and attitude toward the corporation. Studies also found that the religious symbols generated positive impact, such as attitude to the ads, to the brand, and purchase intentio n (Henley et al., 2009; Taylor et al. 2010). The effects of CSR logos also were stu died (Board et al., 2010; De Pelsmacker et al. 2005 ; Tang et al. 2004 ). Board et al. (2010) revealed that a Green Seal logo has an influence on purchase intention, and Tang et al. (2004) confirmed the effect of eco labels in persuasion. De Pelsmacker et al. (2005) found that the fair trade logo was an that a logo leads to more positive persuasion effects. Therefore, a main effect of a CSR logo is expected and the following hypothe sis is proposed:
56 H1. Subjects exposed to a message that contains a CSR logo will demonstrate more favorable effects on the message processing, such that: H1a. Subjects in a CSR logo condition will report a more positive perception of CSR than will those in a CSR logo absence condition. H1b. Subjects in a CSR logo condition will display more favorable attitude toward the corporation than will those in a CSR logo absence condition. H1c. Subjects in a CSR logo condition will display greater behavioral intentio n than will those in a CSR logo absence condition. H1d. Subjects in a CSR logo condition will demonstrate a more favorable cognitive response than will those in a CSR logo absence condition. ELM (Petty & Cacciopo, 1986a, 1986b) and HSM (Chaiken, 1980) rese arches suggest that, depending on the levels of involvement of the participants, factors that induce persuasion are different. According to ELM, factors that simply evoke positive feelings are considered peripheral cues, while factors that lead subjects to think about the central merits of the object are considered central cues (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1986b; Petty et al. 1983). A high involvement group takes information from the central cue to make a decision, while a low involvement group, which is less likely to think HSM research found that a high involvement group was affected by the argument while the low involvement group processed the message heuristically by focusi ng on the heuristically were uninfluenced by the argument and they were influenced by the subsidiary information presented in the message (Todorov, Chaiken, & Henderson,
57 20 02). The low involvement group tends to process the message based on heuristic cues, not c ontent (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1986b) and utilizes shortcu ts to make a decision (Chaiken et al. 1989; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1986b; Petty et al. 1983). In contras t, the high involvement group scrutinizes the central merits of the object carefully (Petty et al., 1983 ), and just presenting simple cues is not enough for them to process a message. In other words, for the high involvement groups, the peripheral cues or subsidiary information in the message are not as important as a central cue (i.e.,argument). Moreover, traditionally, a logo has been considered as a peripheral cue (Jun et al., 2008; Perloff, 2010). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: H2. The re is a two way interaction effect between involvement levels and logo conditions on influence, such that: H2a. The low involvement group will be more influenced by the CSR logo in terms of perceived CSR than will those in high involvement group. H2b. The low involvement group will be more influenced by the CSR logo in terms of attitude toward the corporation than will those in high involvement group. H2c. The low involvement group will be more influenced by the CSR logo in terms of behavior intention than will those in high involvement group. H2d. The low involvement group will be more influenced by the CSR logo in terms of cognitive response than will those in high involvement group
58 Table 2 1. Empirical s tudies of l ogo Author (year) Significant modera tors, predictors Method Main findings Taylor et al. (2010) Religious symbol, Religiosity, Age Experiment For non student samples, those who have religious beliefs significantly influenced by religious symbol. However, for the student samples, there was no difference Henley et al. (2009) Religious symbol, Product fit, Religiosity Experiment Religious symbol with relevant product draws more favorability for attitude toward ad, attitude toward brand, and purchase intention, whereas irrelevant product using religious symbol loses its favorability Stafford et al. (2004) Theatrical performance, Perception of organization Survey Significant relationship between perceived image of logo and perception, logo attractiveness, a nd nonprofit theatrical organizations Henderson, & Cote (1998) Recognition, Meaning, Perceived familiarity Experiment Analysis of the criteria for making effectiv e logo and categorizing several characteristics, such as high/low recognition
59 A B C D E Figure 2 1 Example of energy efficiency l abels in the Banerjee and Solomon (2003) s tudy. A) The Green Seal of App roval logo (p. 110) B) Green e label (p. 113), C) Energy Star logo (p. 112), D) Ene rgy Guide l abel (p. 112) and E) Scientific Certification System (p. 111). (Note: the images were retrieved from Banerjee
60 CHAPTER 3 METHOD Design In this study, a posttest only experiment with two conditions was conducted in orde were in only one of two conditions (logo presence or absence). The presence or absence of a CSR logo in the message was the only manipulation. As a stimulus, a fictitious annua l report serving as a corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication was adopted with modifications based on Reeves and Ferguson experiment using a stimulus. Stimulus Development In this study, a fictitious coffee corporation was cre ated. The coffee industry was chosen due to its significance in the United States and global economy. Coffee, in fact, is the second largest commodity produced and exchanged afte r oil (Argenti, 2004; FLO, 2011 ). The United States buys about 25% (2.45 billi on pounds) of all coffee worldwide (Giovannucci, 2001). Coffee is often produced in developing countries, rendering it an important source of economic growth for them. For example, Burundi is one of the least developed countries in the world, and about 80% of its trade earni ngs come from coffee (FLO, 2011 estimated to be approximately 64 cents per pound (Argenti, 2004). Due to this, criticism arose from non governmental organizations ( NGOs) targeting large coffee corporations. Criticisms of the industry are often related to environmental and ethical concerns. For various reasons, such as to fulfill their philosophies or respond to criticism, coffee corporations have increased sustainabl e coffee (organic, fair trade, and shade grown)
61 initiatives (Giovannucci, 2001). One widely adopted CSR initiative is fair trade (Maloni & Brown, 2006). Therefore, in this study, a fair trade logo was used in the first and second pretests. Later, the USDA Organic logo was adopted for the mai n test after several pretests. Several pretests were conducted to select a CSR logo, checking manipulation and the reliability of the meas urements prior to the main test Pretests Pretest 1 The first pretest was conducte d to check manipulation and the reliability of the measures used among 20 undergraduate students from University of Florida. In the first pretest, a fair trade logo was adopted as the CSR logo, as it was considered one of most widely adopted CSR programs i n the coffee industry (Maloni & Brown, 2006). The pretest indicated that the manipulation was fairly successful, but it did not yield as strong results as desired. Participants who were assigned to the logo presence condition reported more correct answers than those in the logo absence condition. That is, 90.1% of the participants in the logo presence condition correctly answered that they saw the logo; however, only 67% of the participants in the logo absence condition correctly answered that they did not (n=20). items of the behavioral intention measure was .91. While the reliability of the four measures was acceptable, the manipulation did not yield satisfactory results, so another pretest was needed to ensure th e success of this study. Table 3 1 provide s the results of reliability check.
62 Pretest 2 In the second pretest, the text message in the annual report was shortened to increase its clarity. As with the first pretest, the presence or absence of the fair trade logo was tested. Twenty one undergraduat e students from University of Florida participated in the second pretest. The manipulation check for the second pretest was still not satisfactory. About 60% of the participants assigned to the logo presence condition correctly answered that they saw the l ogo, and about 81.8% of the participants who were assigned to the logo absence condition correctly answered that they did not (n=22). A small group discussion with two graduate students revealed that they were unfamiliar with the fair trade logo and did no t recognize it when they saw it. To achieve a better manipulation, selection of a more familiar and recognizable CSR logo was necessary. A third pretest was conducted to select an appropriate CSR logo Pretest 3 The researcher gathered 12 various CSR logo s widely used in the United States. Pretest participants were exposed to these 12 CSR certified logos and asked to answer questions about their familiarity with them (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). The appendix B presents the 12 CSR logos used in the pretest (Bird Friendly, California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance, Demeter USA, Energy Star, Fair Trade, FishWise, Food Alliance, Forest Stewardship Council, Marine Stewardship Council, Rainforest Alliance, Salmon Safe, and USDA Organic). The third pretest was conduc ted among 20 undergraduate students from University of Florida. They were asked three semantic differential questions using a 5 had heard of the o two most familiar logos were the Energy Star logo ( M = 3.56, SD = 0.89) and the USDA
63 Organic logo ( M = 3.43, SD = 1.49). The Food Alliance ( M = 2.03, SD = 0.97) and Fair Trade logo ( M = 2.00, SD = 1.42) were ranked as the third a nd fourth most familiar. Table 3 2 provides the result of pretest 3. The USDA Organic logo was selected over the Energy Star logo because the fit of coffee industry and organic programs is higher than that of the coffee industry and energy efficiency program s. Fit is considered an important variable in CSR (Becker Olsen et al. 2006; Kim & Ferguson, 2010). Fit in the CSR context is the degree to which ) are consistent (Becker Olsen et al. 2006; Kim & Ferguson, 2010). A low fit condition has an intention) regardless of the corporation's motivation (Becker Olsen et al. 2006). This study assumed that corporations. Using that assumption as a foundation, the study investigated how effectively corporations can communicate CSR initiatives utilizing a CSR logo. Organic certification is widely use d in real coffee corporations to reduce skepticism (Giovannucci, 2001). Therefore, a USDA Organic logo was finally chosen for this research Pretest 4 A fourth pretest was conducted using the stimulus developed in the three previous pretests. The USDA Org anic logo was used as the CSR logo in the annual report. The text content of the stimulus was the same as that tested in the first pretest, which was adopted from Reeves and Ferguson DeThorne (1980) with slight modifications, as the length of the message s eemed unrelated to the success of the manipulation in the second pretest. The manipulation check was the main purpose of this pretest. Fourteen
64 graduate students with various majors from University of Florida were recruited for the pretest. After randomly assigning them to one of the two conditions, they were asked to correctly: The annual report contained a text message without pictorial components/The annual report conta the following logos in the annual report? If yes, please choose the one you saw in the the annual r were assigned to the logo presence condition correctly answered all three questions except one participant who answered two out of three questions correctly. Participants in the logo a bsence condition correctly answered all three questions Independent Variable In this study, a CSR logo was the one independent variable. It was manipulated simply through its presence or absence. The CSR logo used in the stimulus was the USDA Organic log o, which was chosen based on pretest 3. The CSR logo presence condition contained a USDA Organic logo along with a text message, while the absence condition presented a text message on ly without the logo. Appendix A provides the stimuli. The two conditions contained identical text contents on the following topics in six related activities. The message (fictitious annual report) was adopted from one of Reeves and Ferguson (1984) annual report stimuli with slight changes. The following message was presented in both conditions as an annual report:
65 We at Honest Coffee Co. believe it is our duty as a socially resp onsible corporation to serve not just our stockholders, but also many diverse groups in society. We feel responsible for balancing the claims and rights of many groups including our employees, customers, suppliers, and the local community. The Honest Coffe e Co. encourages its managers to promote the public good. We are proud to announce that earnings increased to $13 million for the year, compared with $11 million the year before. Consolidated sales were $350 million, while dividends increased to $1.60 a s hare. In meeting the needs of several groups, Honest Coffee Co. has instituted many programs. Most recently, the company sponsored a Public Broadcast Service television program which was three part series shown nationally on most PBS stations. Our interest in employee and partner education has led us to institute an ongoing 15,000 employees in all 12 roasters and local partners. The company is granting leaves of absence and reimbursing employees for the costs of tuition and books based on performance in school. However, the company feels that the need for higher education should be promoted in the community at large as well. Honest Coffee Co. has instituted a national contest to foster the creative efforts of children. Art awards included gold, silver, and bronze cups. Honest Coffee Co. management has played a major role in explaining the policies and duties to the public in the last year. Our management has made more than 100 appearances before local civic groups and national organizations. They were greeted enthusiastically with many questions and suggestions for the company. It is hope d that in helping meet the needs of many different local and national groups, the Honest Coffee Co. can make its biggest contribution to society. Measured Variable Various studies have been conducted on the involvement level through manipulation of time i n which sooner indicates higher involvement (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981; Petty & Cacioppo, 1984), or regarding geographic region, in which closer indicates higher involvement (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981; Lin, 2005). Today, however, it seems difficult to manipulate involvement simply based on differentiating geographical messages because of globalized world and the
66 characteristics of the diversity of the country. Also, previous literature found that igh or low was confusing, even though the statistical s ignificance. For example, Petty, Kasmer, Haugtvedt, and Cacioppo (1987) stated that low/high involvement manipula tion generated a moderate/high involvement condition actually generated a low/mod erate involvement level (Petty et al., 1987 ). To volvement level was measured with Main Experiment Procedures This study adopted an online experiment with a national consumer panel based in the United States, called uSamp (United Samp le, Inc.). This method was chosen because most previous empirical studies in the CSR literature were done with student entation is becoming popular because of the pervasive use of the Internet and ease with which researchers can recruit participants; thus, many social science research projects are conducted using this method (Ballard & Prine, 2002; Schonlau, Fricker, & Ell iot, 2002; Wimmer & Dominick, 2006) Participants Emails containing a link to the online experiment created with Qualtrics were distributed to 234 participants in the United States between June 8 and June 11, 201 1 by the consumer panel uSamp. Among the 234 participants, 157 completed the questionnaires and received a dollar monetary compen sation from the panel company.
67 The 42 people who failed the manipulation check were ex cluded from the data analysis. A total of 115 he hypothesis testing Descriptive Statistics The sample consisted of more females than males: 75.7% were female and 24.3% were male (n=115). People of various age groups participated in the experiment: 0.9% were between 18 and 19; 23.5%, 20 and 24; 27.8%, 25 and 34; 22.6%, 35 and 44, 13.9%, 45 and 55; and 8.7%, 55 and 64. Those 65 and older constituted 1.7% of the sample (n=114). Annual salary was also reported: 47% of participants reported their salary as falling in the range $0 $25,000; 22.6%, $25,001 &5 0,000; 14.8%, $50,001 $75,000; 8.7%, $75,001 $100,000; 2.6%, $100,001 $125,000; 0.9%, $125,001 $150,000; and 1.7%, $175,001 $200,000 (n=113). In terms of ethnicity, Caucasians dominated the sample: 81.7% were Caucasian; 6.1%, African American; 5.2%, Hispan ic; 4.3%, Asian and 1.8%, Native American and other (n=114). In terms of educational level, 23.5% reported that they had obtained a high school diploma or less; 66.9%, a college (2 or 4 year) degree; and 9.5%, a higher or professional degree (e. g., JD a nd MD) (n=115). Table 3 3 provides the descriptive statistics of subjects. Once the participants agreed to participate in the experiment, they were asked to complete a questionnaire to evaluate their involvement level with respect to coffee products. The s they were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (presence or absence of a CSR logo) regardles s of their involvement levels. Participants were divided into two groups based on thei r involvement scores late r in the analysis of the data. The form of they were
68 asked to write down their cognitive responses and to respond to several dependent measures. Measures Involvement item Personal Involvement Inventory (PII) with semantic differential scales. The PII was 59) in various contexts and has been confirmed to measure product involvement (Zaichkowsky, 2004). The 10 items were evaluated using a 7 point semantic differential unex the 10 items was .98. (Table 3 4) Dependent Variables After being exposed to the stimulus, each participant was asked to evaluate how they perceived the message through seven cognitive responses. Then they were asked to answer five questions regarding their p erceptions of CSR, five about their attitude toward the company, and six about their behavioral intention Cognitive responses The participants were asked to write down the thoughts they had while exposed to the stimulus. This method of cognitive response measurement has been used extensively in the literature (Miniard Bhatla, Lord, Dickson, & Unnav a, 1991; Petty & Cacioppo, 1979, 1984, 1986a; Priester & Petty, 2003). Participants in each condition
69 were asked to list all the thoughts they had after reading the stimulus. Seven open ended questions were used to guide participants. The questions were anchored by the annual report. Write your thoughts in the seven boxes on e thought per box and use 805 thoughts were obtained in this manner. Two trained independent judges coded the hod used in a recent study to Raju, Unnava, & Montgomery, 2009a, 2009b). To ensure inter S Krippendorff's alpha estimates judgments regardless of the level of measurement, the number of judges, or missing values (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007; Krippendorff, 1970, 2004 ). There was a 94.53% agreement between coders (Kri disagreements were resolved through discussion ( Petty & Cacioppo, 1986 b ; Raju et al., 2009a, 2009b). After coding all 805 thoughts, support/positive responses accounted for 42% (n= 338); counter/n egative responses, for 8.3 % (n =67) ; neutral responses, for 12.4% (n= 100); and irr elevant responses, for 37.3% (n= 300). Finally, the mean number of support/positive responses was used as a dependent variable. Table 3 5 provides examples of cognitive responses
70 Perceived CSR As a CSR evaluat scale; five items on a seven point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly environmental comm friendly genuinely co perceived CSR scale was .94. (Table 3 4) Attitude toward the corporation the message, the five Reeves an d Ferguson seven (very much/not very much). The tude scale was .97. (Table 3 4) Behavior intention Six behavior intention questions were asked to the participants using a 7 point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly total of 6 items was .95. The first four questions follow the Reeves and Ferguson
71 duct, would you be likely In addition, two Lyon and Cameron (2004) behavior intention measures that were not covered in the Reeves and Ferguson DeThorne (1980) study were added. These products? 4)
72 Table 3 1. Results of reliability check conducted in pretest1 Number of items Involvement 10 .96 Perceived CSR 5 .94 Attitude 5 .95 Behavior Intention 6 .91 Table 3 2 Means and standard deviations of logo familiarity CSR logos Mean SD Energy Star 3.56 .89 USDA Organic 3.43 1.48 Food Alliance 2.03 .97 Fair Trade 2.00 1.42 Marine Steward ship 1.55 1.22 California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance 1.55 .79 Rainforest 1.50 .85 F orest S tewardship C ouncil 1.28 .91 Salmon Safe 1.18 .49 Birds Friendly 1.18 .49 FishWise 1.16 .49 Demeter 1.15 .49
73 Table 3 3. Descriptive statistics for demographics of participants Items N % Gender Female 87 75.7 Male 28 24.3 Age 18 19 1 .9 20 24 27 23 .7 25 34 32 28.1 35 44 26 22.8 45 54 16 14 55 64 10 8.8 65+ 2 1.8 Annual salary $0 $25,000 54 47 $25,001 &50,000 26 22.6 $50,001 $75,000 17 14.8 $75,001 $100,000 10 8.7 $100,001 $125,000 3 2.6 $125,001 $150,000 1 .9 $175,001 $200,000 2 1.7 Ethnicity Caucasian 94 81.7 African American 7 6.1 Hispanic 6 5.2 Asian 5 4.3 Native American and other 2 1.8 Education High school or less 27 23.5 2 or 4 college 77 66.9 Higher/professional degree 11 9.5 Table 3 4. Results of reliability check in main test Number of items Involvement 10 .98 Perceived CSR 5 .94 Attitude 5 .97 Behavior Intention 6 .95
74 Table 3 5. K ey statistics of cognitive responses and example Support / positive Counter / negative Neutral Irrelevant 42 (%) (n=338) 8.3 (%) (n=67) 12.4 (%) (n=100) 37.3 (%) (n=300) buy/use this a company that cares about the playing off social issues to make a seem to make these big companies making all the e 1.60 their education for their employees was that's nice that they're trying to be that a company would pay for it's employees could also mean sustainable o hear of involvement of statements are been involved in community
75 CHAPTER 4 RESULT Manipulation Check At the end of the experiment, participants were asked to answer the following two manipulati report? If yes, please select the one you saw in the annual report. If you did not see any ing logo in the annual report? The USDA logo was presented, and they w ere asked to select yes or no. These manipulation check questions were de veloped based on the pretests. The first manipulation check question, asking people to select the logo they saw if they saw one or to select no if they did not see one, was answered correctly by 67% of the logo existence condition participants, while 89.7% of the logo absence condition participan ts answered correctly (n=157). For the second yes or no question that asked whether the participants saw the USDA logo (presenting the USDA logo), 73.4% of the logo existence condition participants and 84.4% of the logo absence condition participants responded correctly. In addition, 16.6% of the total participants (n=157) gave incorrect responses to both questions, and approximately 73.2% of the participants gave correct responses to both manipulation questions (n= 1 57). Finally, 42 participants (26.8%) who failed on the manipulation check were eliminated. Therefore a hypothesis testing
76 Categorization of Involvement For the involvement factor, participants were d ivided into two categories through split at the median ( Mdn = 5, the median value of averaged involvement). Half of the participants were coded as high involvement when their averaged involve ment score were higher than 5. And the remaining half was categor ized as the low involvement group. This way, the two groups were evenly divided. As a result, 57 participants were categorized as part of the high involvement group, and 58 participants were categorized as part of the low involvement group. (Table 4 1 ) Th ere are several justifications for adopting the median split method in this study. First of all, this research not only tested the main effects of the CSR logo, but it also examined the interaction effects of involvement and the CSR logo. When testing the interaction effect, ANOVA was considered as the traditional method ( DeCoster, Iselin, & G allucci, 2009). To perform ANOVA, researchers need to transform the continuous variables into dichotomized variables. This method is widely used in social sciences, ps ych ology, and marketing (DeCoster et al. 2009; Irwin & McClelland, 2003). Secondly, researchers argued that ANOVA results using dichotomized independent variables and the result of regression with continuous independent variables induce the same conclusio n; additionally, ANOVA facilitates the presentation of results, for example, by di splaying mean scores (DeCoster et al. 20 09). DeCoster et al. (2009) mentioned that ANOVA and regression results may draw the same conclusions, but that there are exceptions. Therefore, additional multiple regressions were performed to check the results and to provide a more valid conclusion.
77 Hypothesis Testing Participants were fairly evenly distri buted over the two conditions. For the logo existence condition, a total of 51 participants (low involvement = 23, and high in volvement = 28) were assigned. For the logo absence condition, a total of 64 participants (low involvement = 35, and high in volvement = 29) were assigned. ( Table 4 1 ). The general linear model and t tests were used to test hypotheses 1a d and 2a d Hypothesis 1 H1 a d predicted that the logo existence of the message would lead to more favorable (a) perceived CSR evaluation, (b) attitude toward the corporation, (c) behavior intentio n, and (d) cognitive response. The results indicated that the logo had a significant effect on perceived CSR, F (1, 111) = 8.94, p < .01, 2 = .07; attitude toward the corporation, F (1, 111) = 4.39, p < .05, 2 = .04; and behavior intention, F (1, 111) = 4.00, p < .05, 2 = .03. Howev er, there was no such main effect on cognitive response, F (1, 111) = 1.51, p = .22, 2 = .01 ( T able 4 2 ) When the participants were exposed to the corporate annual report containing a CSR logo, they perceived that the corporation had better CSR activiti es than one with a CSR logo absence message ( M logo = 5.82, SD = .17 vs. M no logo = 5.16, SD = .15, p <.01); their attitude toward the corporation improved when the logo was present ( M logo = 5.76, SD = .18 vs. M no logo = 5.26, SD = .16, p <.05); and their b ehavior intention was higher when the message contained a CSR logo ( M logo = 5.21, SD = .20 vs. M no logo = 4.68, SD = 0.18, p <.05). Mean differences between CSR logo existence and CSR logo absence conditions were not found in cognitive response ( M logo = 3. 21, SD = .32 vs. M no logo = 2.67, SD = .29, p = .22). Table 4 3 provides summary of means.
78 Therefore, H1a, H1b, and H1c were supported, as the CSR logo presence message generated a more favorable perceived CSR evaluation, a more positive attitude, and mor e behavior intention toward the corporation than the CSR logo absence message; conversely, H1d was not supported. Hypothesis 2 H2a d predicted that there would be an interaction effect between the logo manipulation and the pa This means that logo presence or attitude, behavior intention, or cognitive thought responses, while it would significantly affect the evaluation made by the low involvement g roup. No interaction effect was found on perceived CSR, F (1, 111) = .00, p = .99, 2 = .00, attitude toward the corporation, F (1, 111) = 1.80, p = .18, 2 = .02, behavior intention, F (1, 111) = .21, p = .65, 2 = .00, or cognitive response, F (1, 111) = .41, p = .53, 2 = .00. ( T able 4 2 ). However, interesting patterns were observed i n attitude toward the corporation, behavior intention, and cognitive response. Several t tests were also conducted to check mean differenc es. As it shows on the Figure 4 2, the mean difference between those exposed to the CSR logo and the no logo group was significantly different in the low involvement group ( M logo = 5.88, SD = .27 vs. M no logo = 5.05, SD = .22, t = 2.96, p = .002), while it was not significantly different in the high involvement group ( M logo = 5.66, SD = .24 vs. M no logo = 5.47, SD = .24, t = .46, p = .32) in at titude toward the corporation. Also, in behavior intention, the mean difference between those exposed to the CSR logo and the no logo group was significantly different in the low involvement group ( M logo = 5.18, SD = .30 vs. M no logo = 4.52, SD = .24, t = 2.19, p = .02), but in the high
79 involvement group there was no difference ( M logo = 5.24, SD = .27 vs. M no logo = 4.82, SD = .26, t = .93, p = .18). ( T able 4 3 and F igure 4 3). However, the opposite pattern was found in cognitive res ponse. As shown in Figure 4 and absence conditions was found at marginal level ( M logo = 3.50, SD = .44 vs. M no logo = 2.69, SD = .23, t = .1.33, p = .09), but there was no difference among the low involvement group ( M logo = 2.91, SD = .48 vs. M no logo = 2.66, SD = .39, t = .41, p = .34). ( T able 4 3 and F igure 4 4). In terms of perceived CSR, however, no such pattern was found. As shown in Figure 4 1, the mean differences were signific ant for both groups (low involvement group: M logo = 5.64, SD = .24 vs. M no logo = 4.97, SD = .20, t = 2.17, p = .02); and high involvement group: M logo = 6.00, SD = .22 vs. M no logo = 5.35, SD = .22, t = 2.06, p = .02). Therefore, H2b and H2c were supporte d and H2a and H2d were not supported. In terms of H2d, opposite direction was found that for high involvement group the logo generated more positive effects. Figure 4 1, Figure 4 2, Figure 4 3, and Figure 4 4 show these patterns Additional Findings The hi gh involvement group tends to generate a more positive response regarding the perceived CSR than the low involvement group. The results indicated a main effect of involvement on the perceived CSR at nearly significant level, F (1, 111) = 2.91, p = .05, 2 = .02. This means that high coffee involvement individuals evaluate a coffee M high inv = 5.68, SD = .16 M low inv = 5.30, SD = .16), regardles s of logo presence or absence. Howev er, there were no such main effects were found on other dependent variables
80 such as attitude toward the corporation, behavior intention and co gnitive responses. ( T able 4 2 ) Multiple Regressions Although median splits are widely used in the areas of social sciences to create categorical variables from continuous variables, they have been criticized (DeCoster et al. 2009; Irwin & McClelland, 2003). Several scholars argued that median splits reduce the power of the effects; therefore, regression analysis was suggested for continuous variables (Aiken & West, 1991; Irwin & McClelland, 2003). Further, a series of multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to check the interaction effects of the two de toward the corporation, behavior intention, and cognitive responses, as well as their main effects. Originally, the CSR logo variable was categorical due to the fact that it was manipulated as a presence vs. absence condition. Therefore, the CSR logo v ariable has been recoded into dummy variables (logo = 1, no logo = 0) for regression analysis. Also, analysis. To check interaction effect, variables were computed throu gh the value of involvement mean score by the logo condition. The results of the multiple regressions indicated there were no interaction effects of involvement and conditions on perceived CSR ( R 2 = .13, F (1, 111) = .05, p = .82), attitude toward the corp oration ( R 2 = .06, F (1, 111) = 1.14, p = .29), behavior intention ( R 2 = .06, F (1, 111) = .17, p = .68), and cognitive responses ( R 2 = .03, F (1, 111) = .00, p = .99). However, there were significant effects of the involvement levels and conditions on pe rceived CSR ( R 2 = .13, F (1, 112) = 9.01, p < .05). It was found that involvement
81 = .22, p < .05), as did CSR logo condition ( = .27, p < .05). Therefore, an unstandardized equation of t he model was created: involvement + 0.649Condition logo involvement + 0.649 (1) For no logo condition: 81 + 0.132X involvement + 0.649 (0) The results indicated that the involvement level and the CSR logo are significant predictor for generating better perceived CSR eval uation among the subjects. The F igure 4 5 shows the regression line i llustrating the main effects. No significant main effect of involvement was found on attitude toward the corporation ( R 2 = .01, F (1, 113) = 1.33, p = .25); only the CSR logo had a significant main effect in terms of attitude toward the corporation ( R 2 = 05, F (1, 112) = 4.2, p < corporation ( = .19). No significant main effect of involvement was found on behavior intention ( R 2 = .02, F (1, 113) = 2.76, p = .10), while only marginal main effect of the CSR logo were found in terms of behavior intention ( R 2 = .06, F (1, 112) = 3.84, p = .05). T he presence = .18).
82 No significant main effects of involvement ( R 2 = .02, F (1, 113) = 2.20, p = .14) and CSR logo were found on cognitive response ( R 2 = .03, F (1, 112) = 1.42, p = .24).
83 Table 4 1 Distribution of sample CSR Logo Presence Absence Total High involvement 28 29 57 Low involvement 23 35 58 Total 51 64 115 Table 4 2 A summary o f Univariate F values for the dependent variables Dependent variable CSR logo Involvement CSR logo X Involvement Perceived CSR F = 8.94* F = 2.91 F = .00 Attitude F = 4.39 F = .18 F = 1.80 Behavior Intention F = 4.00 F = .45 F = .21 Cognitive respon se F = 1.51 F = .51 F = .41 Note: p < .05. ** p < .01 df = 1/111 Table 4 3. Means and standard deviations for perceived CSR, attitude to the corporation, behavior intention, and cognitive responses by CSR logo manipulation and involvement level. Depend ent variables Involvement level CSR Logo Presence Absence Total M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Perceived CSR High 6.01 (1.02) 5.35 (1.35) 5.67 (1.24) Low 5.63 (0.84) 4.97 (1.29) 5.23 (1.17) Total 5.84 (.96) 5.14 (1.32) 5.45 (1.22) Attitude High 5.65 (1. 47) 5.47 (1.49) 5.56 (1.46) Low 5.87 (.90) 5.05 (1.11) 5.37(1.11) Total 5.75 (1.24) 5.24 (1.30) 5.45 (1.29) Behavior Intention High 5.24 (1.75) 4.83 (1.56) 5.03 (1.66) Low 5.18 (.93) 4.53 (1.21) 4.79 (1.15) Total 5.21 (1.42) 4.66 (1.38) 4. 90 ( 1.42) Cognitive response High 3.5 (2.46) 2.69 (2.12) 3.09 (2.30) Low 2.91 (2.13) 2.66 (2.42) 2.76 (2.30) Total 3.24 (2.31) 2.67(2.28) 2.92 (2.30)
84 Figure 4 1. P erceived CSR by condition and involvement Figure 4 2. Attitude toward the corporatio n by condition and involvement
85 Figure 4 3. Behavior intention by condition and involvement Figure 4 4. Cognitive responses by condition and involvement
86 Figure 4 5. The regression lines of CSR logo and involvement on perceived CSR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perceived CSR Involvement Logo No logo
87 CHAPTER 5 D ISCUSSION This chapter presents the results of the experiment described in Chapter 4. The chapter contains a summary of the findings, conclusions related to the hypotheses, and a discussion of implications for both public relations and practitioners. It co ncludes with Summary of Key Findings The present study provides information useful for corporations when communicating their CSR activities to publics. It examined the effect of a CSR logo in corporate communication among various publics in the United States. It presented the responses of both high and low involvement participants to messages that did or did not contain a CSR logo. Specifically, to explore how high and low involvem ent participants processed the message, the study measured their evaluation of CSR activities, their attitude toward the corporation, their hypothetical behavioral intention (i.e., purchase, recommend, and/or invest), and their cognitive response. The resu lts show that the the corporation, and behavioral intention, but no t on their cognitive response. In general, the message containing the CSR logo was more effective than the message without in No interaction effect was observed between the presence or absence of th e CSR lvement (i.e., high or low). The results indicated, intention were significantly impacted by the presence of the CSR logo among low
88 on their at titude and behavior intention. Moreover, in terms of cognitive response, high involved participants were more affected by the logo presence and created more favorable thoughts; while for a low involved group there was no difference. Furthermore, the CSR logo was effective when it was shown to the high involvement group in terms of perception of CSR, but not attitude toward the corporation, behavioral intenti on, and cognitive response Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1a d predicted that the CSR logo would have a significant impact on (a) perception of CSR, (b) attitude toward the corporation, (c) behavioral intentio n, and (d) cognitive response. The results confirmed that the CSR logo had a significant impact on all dependent variables except for cognitive response. The effect of the CSR logo observed in this experiment was consistent with previous research. One of the most recent studies examining the effect of CSR l ogos is Green Seal logo study, which showed that the Green Seal logo had a significant impact on purchase intention. Board et al. (2010) reported that regardless of the quality of the purchas e intention. Eta squared ( 2 ) is one measures of effect size for ANOVA (Levine & Hullett, 2002). It can be calculated following the formula of SS effect / SS total (Pearson, 1911). SPSS only presents the partial eta squared, however it displays the corrected total variance and the e ffect variance. Therefore, the eta squared could be calculated based on that (Becker, 1999). Eta squared ( 2 ) of each dependent variable were: perceived CSR ( 2 = .07), attitude toward the corporation ( 2 = .05), behavior intention ( 2 = .03).
89 According to Green and Salkind (2008), 2 = .01 is considered as small, .06 as medium .14 as a large effect sizes. Therefore, the results of the main effects of CSR logo in this study could be considered as medium effect or less Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2a d predict ed an interaction effect between presence or absence of a CSR logo and level of involvement in terms of (a) perceptions of CSR, (b) attitude toward the corporation, (c) behavioral intention, and (d) cognitive response. Traditionally, a CSR logo is consider ed a peripheral cue (Jun et al., 2008; Perloff, 2010). Peripheral cues generally assist low involvement participants in message processing. People who think heuristically are usually less affected by argument quality than by heuristic cues, for example, at tractiveness is more important than message contents (Todorov et al., 2002). Thus, for low involvement participants, the presence or absence of a heuristic cue (e.g., a CSR logo) would make a greater difference on their message processing than on high invo lvement participants. However, no significant interaction effect was observed from Univariate ANOVAs and multiple regressions analysis in this study. Nevertheless, several t tests indicated that H2 was partially supported. In terms of attitude toward the corporation and behavior intention, the low involvement group was affected by the CSR logo meaning that they generated more favorable responses while the high involvement group was not affected by the presence of the CS R logo. Therefore, the H2 was partial ly supported. Interestingly, about the H2d, opposite result from the prediction was found that the high involvement group was more affected by the CSR logo in terms of the cognitive response meaning that they generated more positive
90 thoughts when they were exposed to the CSR logo message. Meanwhile, for a low involvement group, the CSR logo did not affect their cognitive thought responses The results from multiple linear regressions confirmed the main effects of CSR logo on perceived CSR and attitude towa rd the corporation. This was consistent with the results from GLM. Additionally, nearly significant main effects of CSR logo on the behavior intention ( p = .05). However, this was slight different from the GLM results that found significant main effects of CSR logo on behavior intention ( p < .05). As same as the results from GLM, there was no main effect of CSR logo on the cognitive thought responses. Therefore, slight difference was found between GLM and regression analyses in terms of the main effect on b ehavior intention, while other results were consistent in terms of testing main effects of CSR logo. Another finding from the regressions showed that there was main effect of the ement is high, they generated more positive evaluation of CSR. However, results from ANOVA indicated that there was main effect of the CSR logo on perceived CSR at marginal level ( p = .05). Here, ANOVA using dichotomization variable generated nonsignifican t value while it was significant when it was treated as continuous variable. This was the one consideration of Irwin and McClelland (2003) who suggested that you should avoid the dichotomization of the continuous variables. However, as previously mentioned regression also generated negative consequences that main effects of CSR logo on behavior intention was nonsignificant value while it was significant from ANOVA.
91 Both analyses indicated that interaction effects of the involvement and the CSR logo were n ot found on perceived CSR, attitude to the corporation, behavior intention, and cognitive responses. Although, there were slight differences in results found from the two analyses, overall results were consistent each other. And the differences seemed not to be critical problems because the nonsignificant p value were .05 and it may be considered as nearly significant. Theoretical Implications The results of this study have several theoretical implications for CSR and the design of effective corporate comm unications. First, much empirical research in the components ( Mitchell, 1986) In addition, several empirical studies on CSR communications also tested message contents such as argument quality (Liao, 1992) and message sidedness ( Lin, 2005) Nevertheless, in real life, pictures play as important a role as verbal communication (Wyer et al., 2008). Fortunately, scholarly interest in the role of visual components crafted to boost m essage effectiveness has been growing. However, few studies have done so in the context of CS R. Hence, the current study contributed to the CSR literature by testing the CSR logo as a visual Secondly, th e concept of CSR emerged in the late 1800s ( Clark, 2000), and researchers have worked to conceptualize the theory since. Empirical studies of CSR are easily found in the literature on marketing, but not in the literature on public relations. Accordingly, M cWilliams et al. (2006) called for further development of CSR
92 is still embryonic, and thus theoretical frameworks, measurement, and empirical methods have not yet been r Communicating about CSR activities is as important as the activities themselves, since CSR directly involves both the corporation and the stakeholders (Bowie, 1991). So scholars must conduct more empirical research to determine ways to eff ectively communicate with stakeholders. In this sense, the present study makes a valuable contribution to the CSR literature by linking practice and theory. involvement participan ts, who incorporate all information in the message, a heuristic cue congruent ( Todorov et al. 2002) In contrast, low involvement participants use shortcuts to process informati on and are less likely to think. Here, peripheral cues provide clues for quick decision making. Therefore, subsidiary information (i.e., the USDA logo) assists in their information processing. Therefore the CSR logo increased the effectiveness of the messa ge for both high and low involvement people. However, this study focused simply on identifying the effect of a CSR logo. Determining the specific H2 was partially supported in this resea rch using t tests Only H2b and H2c were supported that low involvement group was affected by the CSR logo in their attitude formation and behavior intention. The results found here confirmed the ELM argument that low involvement subjects are more influenc ed by peripheral cues. Petty and Cacioppo (1981) argued that for high involvement participants, argument quality has a greater impact on persuasion. In contrast, for low involvement participants, peripheral
93 cues (e.g., source credibility) signif icantly inf luenced persuasion. Pe tty et al. (1983) also confirmed that peripheral cues (e.g., endorsement) had more impact on low involvement ude greatly. In terms of cognitive responses (H2d), different from the prediction, the heuristic cue (i.e., the CSR logo) was more effective for the high involvement group than a low involvement group. The HSM can explain this opposit e results from the pr ediction. According to HSM, people utilize both systematic and heuristic processing, although it is not always but sometime. Especially, high involvement people tend to scrutinize all the information (i.e., message argument, and other subsidiary components ) presented in the message and generate acti ve thought processing. Todorov et al. (2002) argued that when the two cues (the heuristic cue and the argument) are congruent in the message, the independent effects of the two cues combine, maximizing the overal l effect. Therefore, for a high involvement group, effect of heuristic cue can boost the overall effect along w ith the effect of central cue. Based on this logic, one possible reason for the results that high involvement group was more affected by the CSR logo presence than the low involvement might be that the components of the message adopted in this research were congruent. In other words, the argument and the CSR logo were convincing each other. Further research is necessary to confirm this possibility However, the t tests results should be considered carefully because t his research failed to find the interaction effects of the involvement level and CSR logo from the GLM and multiple regressions analyses. Previous studies of ELM manipulated involvement levels and found the interaction effects of the involvement. (Petty & Cacioppo,1979
94 1981; Petty et al. 1983). However, this research did not manipulate the involvement level, but treated as a measured variable. This might be one reason for not finding t he significant interaction effect s from both analyses Future research may manipulate the involvement levels and predict the interaction effects Practical Implications First of all, this research suggested effective CSR communications using a CSR logo for p ublic relations practitioners. Many different corporations have adopted CSR programs, today. Corporations must not only conduct CSR activities well but also communicate well about those activities. Unfortunately, more than half of the people living in th e United States find the CSR information corporations provide confusing ( Cone Inc., 2010) Adopting a CSR logo in corporate communications can help to alongside a message i low involvement participants. One advantage of a CSR logo is that it can be understood universally due its pictorial components; secondly, it can be used effectively despite limited space or time ( Koh li et al., 2002). A CSR logo is a quick, effective mode of expression showing that the corporation is responsible. It is an indicator of the quality of the product as well as the quality of the corporation ( Kohli et al., 2002) This study is basis on the b asic principles of the public relations and ethical theories of CSR, it is suggested that the corporation should be transparent on their behavior to the publics. So, using a CSR logo should be considered as same context meaning that they actually behave re sponsibly in order to adopt a CSR logo in th eir communication. Of course, obtaining the permission of a CSR logo is no simple task. Corporations should follow the guidelines of the certifying organization and should
95 continue to act responsibly so that they can continue to use the CSR logo. For a corporation that is not actively engaged in CSR programs, th is might be considered a cost. However, to maintain a business in society (Davis, 1973), one cannot consider C SR an option, but a necessity. If corporation s already meet the standards of a certifying organization, not using a CSR logo makes their CSR communications less effective. Corporations that do meet such standards can boost the effectiveness of their communications and thus cultivate a more favorable behavioral intention and attitude toward their corporations among variou s publics by using a CSR logo. Adopting one of the widely known CSR logos, such as USDA Organic, can be helpful f or a small or new corporation. Using well known CSR logos in corporate advertisements, annual reports, and Web sites causes publics to view corporations more favorably. orsement in corporate communication. According to ELM, trustworthy endorsers have a great impact ions (Priester & Petty, 2003). The current study adopted a well known CSR logo, USDA Organic, promoted by United Sta tes Depa rtment of Agriculture. Since a government supported CSR label is considered more credible than a private label ( Banerjee & Solomon, 2003), the effect of the CSR logo might be rooted in source credibility. Therefore, a CSR logo promoted by government will b e effective ways to communicate CSR. Lastly, from a stakeholder theory of CSR, this study emphasizes the importance of two way direction of CSR following Bowie (1991). Specifically, not only the corporation has the obligation to perform responsibly, but a lso other stakeholders such as
96 initiatives by consuming the product or investing the corporation (Bowie, 1991). Therefore, this study suggests that providing the CSR l ogo will be one ways to provide responsible corporations Limitations The present study had limitations. The study adopted an experimental method, thereby causing a proble m of the artificiality meaning that the setting is different from real world situation and lacks external validity (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006). Thus, the sample was limited because the experiment was conducted through an online panel. The current study recru ited various publics rather than just students; however, the participants received compen sation from the panel company. These might increase the motivation of the subje cts (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006). Also, the participants were more than 70% female, so the sample is not representative of the general population. created carefully, going through several rounds of pretests and modifications, the component of the annual report was t oo simple reducing external validity. In the real world, annual reports contains more components, such as tables, corporate logos, and pictures. In this study, the only graphical component was the CSR logo. Moreover, the logo presented in the annual repor t was enlarged; in a real situation it would be smaller. The situation might be slightly different from real annual reports. And with all of other subsidiary information presented together with the CSR logo, the effect might be different from that observed in the current study. However, in this way, the study
97 ensured that participants would respond to the CSR logo and thus eliminated the confounding effect of other corporate communication practices. Further, participants who did not recognize the CSR logo were excluded from the power. In fact, the eta squared value indicated that the effect sizes were at the medium level at large as mentioned earlier About 30% of the or iginal participants did not recognize the CSR logo and failed to correctly answer the manipulation check (n=157). However, the dual process model predicts such an occurrence. Systematic processing is intentional processing, while heuristics is unself consc ious processing (Chaiken et al. 1989). Thus, people do not know whether they are affected by heuristics or not. In this thoughts or responses, as it relied on self r eport. Further, the measurement of other dependent variables, such as behavioral intention, were self reported. This self report might then not correspond to their purchase behavior in real life Recommendations for Future Research One of the purposes of this study was to confirm the effect of a CSR logo. The attitude toward the corporation, and behavioral intention. With experimental methods, to increase the exte rnal validity, studies must be replicable with various participants and in various setti ngs (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006). Therefore, this study needs to be replicated in the future in different circumstances. The study tested the effect of a CSR logo in the c ontext of a corporate annual report; however, it will be expanded to various communication outlets. For example, it
98 might be tested in an online communication setting, such as on a corporate Web site, or in corporate advertisements, or in the product packa ge. The study indicated that the CSR logo affected perceptions of CSR, attitude toward the corporation, and behavioral intention. These effects could be explained in various ways using the dual processing model. The CSR logo in the message might be seen a s a credible source or as familiar, thereby generating positive thoughts. Future studies could compare high credibility/low credibility and high familiarity/low familiarity CSR logos to clearly identify the underlying mechanism of the effect of the CSR log o. Also, the fit between CSR activities and corporation category is considered an s CSR activities (Becker Olsen et al. 2006; Kim & Ferguson, 2010). Therefore, future researchers should explore the fit between product/industry and CSR logo. Lastly, this study simply considered the CSR logo a peripheral cue. However, other studies argued that a picture or other peripheral cue could be seen as either peripheral or central ( Miniard et al. 1991) Bone and France (2001) considered a label containing information (e.g., a nutrition label) as a central cue. Jun et al. (2008) suggested that a text based logo might be considered a central cue, while a picture based logo a peripheral cue. Therefore further research should examine the specific role the CSR logo plays in a message
99 APPENDIX A INSTRUMENTAL MANIPULATION CSR Logo Presence Condition
100 CSR Logo Absence Condition
101 APPENDIX B PRETEST3 LOGOS
102 APPENDIX C QUE STIONNAIRE In this first section, you will be asked to answer your thoughts related to an object or an issue. Please respond to the following statements. 1. Product Involvement Coffee Important _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant Boring _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting Relevant _____:_____:_____:_____:_____: _____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Irrelevant Exciting _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unexciting Means nothing _____:_____:_ ____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Means a lot to me Appealing _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unappealing F ascinating _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mundane Worthless _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Valu able Involving _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninvolving Not needed _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Needed
103 2 Cognitive Thoughts Please list the thoughts, ideas, and images that you had while looking at the annual report. And write your thoughts in the seven boxes one thought per box and use only as many boxes as the number of thought s that you can recall. ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ___________________________ _____________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
104 3 Perceived CSR Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. "Honest Coffee Co. .. ." Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 1. b elieves in environmental commitment. ____:____:____:____:____:____:____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. is likely to follow environment friendly rules and policies. ____:____:____:____:____:____:____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. is highly concerned about environmental issues. ____:____:____:____:____:____:_ ___ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. is highly involved in community activities. ____:____:____:____:____:____:____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 is genuinely concerned about public welfare. ____:____:____:____:____:____:____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
105 4 Attitude toward the Company Please indicate how you feel about Honest Coffee Co. Not at all Very Trustworthy Trustworthy 1. How trust worthy do you feel this company is? ____:____:____:____:____:____:____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 2 Would you believe the information this company presents? ____:____:____:____:____:____:____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 Would you li ke to see this company located in your community? ____:____:____:____:____:____:____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 business? ____:____:____:____:____:____:____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 Do you feel that this company has contributed to the public interest? ____:____:____:____:____:____:____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
106 5 Behavior Int ention Please answer the following questions. Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 1. If you had enough money, would you invest in this company? ____:____:____:____:____:____ :____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. would you be likely to buy it over other similar products? ____:____:____:____:____:____:____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Would you like to work on a community project with representatives from this company? ____:____:____:____:____:____:____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Would you like to work for this company? __ __:____:____:____:____:____:____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 products to a friend looking for a similar product? ____:____:____:____:____:____:____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Would you like to request more products? ____:____:____:____:____:____:____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
107 6. General Information In order to effectively evaluate the survey responses, please answer the following questions about yourself. 6 1. What is your g ender ? Male Female 6 2. What is your current age? 18 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or over 6 3. W hat is the highest level of education you have completed? Less than High School High School / GED Some College 2 year College Degree 4 year College Degree Masters Degree Doctoral Degree Professional Degree (JD. MD)
108 6 4. What is your annual salary (including b onuses and commissions) in U.S. dollars? $0 $25,000 $25,001 $50,000 $50,000 $75,000 $75,001 $100,000 $100,001 $125,000 $125,001 $150,000 $150,001 $175,000 $175,001 $200,000 $200,001 + 6 5. What is your ethnicity? White / Caucasian African American Hispanic Asian Native American Pacific Islander Other
109 7. Manipulation Check This is the last section of this survey. Now, you will be asked a few questions about the annual report you saw before. 7 1. Did you see one of the following logos in the annual report? If YES, please choose the correct one you saw in the annual report. If you did NOT see any logo, select NO. 7 2. Did you see a following logo in the annual report ? Yes No This is the end of the survey. Thank you for your interest and participation in this important study. You will not be identified individually within the survey, and any information you provide will remain strictly anonymous. No, I did not see any logo.
110 APPEND IX D UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD INFORMED CONSENT APPROVAL Protocol Submission Form UFIRB 02 Social & Behavioral Research Protocol Submission Form This form must be typed. Send this form and the supporting documents to IRB02, PO Bo x 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611. Should you have questions about completing this form, call 352 392 0433. Title of Protocol: Examining the Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility and the Role of Involvement Principal Investigator: Young Eun Par k UFID #: N/A Degree / Title: Mailing Address: (If on campus include PO Box address): N/A Email: email@example.com Department: D epartment of Public Relations, College of Journ alism and Communications Telephone #: N/A Co Investigator(s): UFID#: Email: Supervisor (If PI is student) : Dr. Mary Ann Ferguson UFID#: N/A Degree / Title: P h.D., / Professor Mailing Address: N/A Email : firstname.lastname@example.org Department: D epartment of Public Relations College of Journ alism and Communicat ions Telephone #: N/A Date of Proposed Research: From April 15 2011 to August 15 2011. Source of Funding (A copy of the grant proposal must be submitted with this protocol if funding is involved): Unfunded
111 Scientific Purpose of the Study : The study is designed to reveal the effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) logos among American publics. This study will analyze to see how the different product and reactions such as attitude and behavior intention to the product and company. Therefore, this study will create annual reports of a fictitious corporation that containing either CSR logos or not. Also, the product involvement level of participants wil l be measured by asking questions. Applying these findings in the context of CSR theory, the proposed research seeks to examine the current communication strategy (using CSR logo) is effective or not. This study lays the theoretical groundwork for CSR theo ry and elaboration likelihood model. Therefore, this research will provide theoretical and practical implications to this area. Describe the Research Methodology in Non Technical Language: ( Explain what will be done with or to the research participant. ) To find out the effects of CSR logos, participants will be exposed to either CSR logo embedded message or no logo message conditions. Prior to that they will be asked questions about product involvement. After they saw the message, they will report the ir feelings and perceptions. The participants of this study will be gathered with national panel company in the United States. Upon consenting to take part in the study, participants will be asked to view stimuli and fill out a questionnaire to measure the ir perceptions to the company based on ELM literature and CSR literatures, and some demographic factors. Participants will be asked to c omplete the questionnaire individually through online, not being observed by one another including researchers or others Also, s ubjects will be anonymous. responses will be protected. Refer to the attached stimuli and questionnaire. Describe Potential Benefits: Due to national wide participants are essential to this study, t he current study will use samples from the national panel company. The participants will be received small amount of money ($1) from the panel company. Describe Potential Risks: ( If risk of physical, psychological or economic harm may be involved, describ e the steps taken to protect participant.) The project should not create any physical, psychological or economic risks. Most of the scales used in the questionnaire are routinely used by public relations scholars and marketing literatures in their experime ntal research. No risk associated with the questions has been reported. Describe How Participant(s) Will Be Recruited: The researcher will employ national consumer panel with online access for its web based questionnaires. The participants will receive a small amount of money ($1) in the exchange of their participation. A total of 250 participants randomly selected from a
112 national consumer panels operated by leading market research received an email with the link to reach stimuli and questionnaires. The sample consisted the United States based consumers who have not participated during past two weeks and they rewarded small premium ($1) through the panel company Maximum Number of Participants (to be approached with consent) 25 0 Age Range of Participant s: Adults ranges from 18 50 Amount of Compensation/ course credit: No greater than $4. Describe the Informed Consent Process. (Attach a Copy of the Informed Consent Document. See http://irb.ufl.edu/i rb02/samples.html for examples of consent.) The participants will read the posted consent statement. When they agree to participate in the survey, they are supposed to click the given link to the survey, indicating their willingness to participate. When t hey decide not to participate, they are supposed to click a link to the University of Florida official web site. Refer to the attached consent form. Subjects will be anonymous. (SIGNATURE SECTION) Principal Investigator(s) Signature: Date: Co Investig ator(s) Signature(s): Date: student): Date: Department Chair Signature: Date:
113 Informed Consent Protocol Title: Examining the Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility and the Role of Involvement Please read th is consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to examine American responses to the communication from a large corporation You will be asked questions abou t your perceptions and attitudes to the corporations. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be asked to view a message and to indicate your thoughts and feelings about the stimuli in a confidential questionnaire. Time required : Less than 15 minutes Risks and Benefits : We do not anticipate there will be any risks or direct benefits to you as a consequence of your decision to complete the survey. Compensation : A small amount of monetary compensation will be given on behalf of the experimenter for participating in this study. You will be received a small amount of money ($1) from the consumer panel company within 2 weeks. Confidentiality names will be used in any part of the st udy. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Voluntary participation : Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. You can choose not to answer any question you do not wis h to answer. Right to withdraw from the study : You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Principle Investigator: College of Jo urnalism and Communications email@example.com Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study : UFIRB Office IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 392 0433
114 Agreement: I have rea d the document stating the procedures to be used and followed in this study. I have received a copy of informed consent and AGREE to participate in the study.
115 LIST OF REFERENCES Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing b rand e quity : Capitalizing on the value of a b rand n ame New York NY : The Free Press. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple r egression: Testing and interpreting interactions Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Argenti, P. (2004). Collaboration with activists: How Starbucks works with NG Os. California Management Review, 47 (1), 91 116. Ballard, C., & Prine, R. (2002). Citizen perceptions of community policing: Comparing Internet and mail survey responses. Social Science Computer Review, 20 (4), 485 493. Bank of America. (2010). Pink ribbon visa signature credit card with world points rewards benefiting Susan G. Komen for the cure. Retrieved November, 18, 2010 from https://www.bankofamerica.com/creditcards/marketingdetail .action?context_id=marketing_detail&offer_id=ECOMM090QVYD0040680015338 0EN000|2033448|5C Banerjee, A., & Solomon, B. (2003). Eco labeling for energy efficiency and su stainability: A meta evaluation of U.S. programs. Energy Policy, 32 (2), 109 123. Bec ker, L. A. (1999). Measures of effect size Retrieved from http:// www.uccs.edu/~faculty/lbecker/SPSS/glm_effectsize.htm#Eta%20squared% 20%28h2%29 Becker Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59 (1), 46 53. Bennett, P. D. (1995). Dictionary of marketing t erms. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books. new? European Journal of Marketing 44 (9), 1305 1321. Board, V. E., Crighton being green: The effects of argument and imagery on consumer responses to green product packaging. Paper presented at the 94 th Annual Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Commu nication (AEJMC) Convention Denver, CO. Bone, P. F., & France, K. R. (2001). Package graphic and consumer product beliefs. Journal of Business and Psychology 15 (3), 467 489.
116 Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York, NY: H arper & Row. Bower, A. B., Grau, S. L. (2009). Explicit donations and inferred endorsements. Journal of Advertising, 38 (3), 113 126. Bowie, N. (1991). New direction in corporate social responsibility. Business Horizon 34 (4), 56 66. Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997) The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. The Journal of Marketing, 61 (1), 68 84. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Rev iew, 4 (4), 497 505. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of co rporate social responsibility: T oward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34 (4) 39 48. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a de finitional construct. Business and Society, 38 (3), 268 295. Carroll, A. B. (2010). A history of corporate social responsibility: Con cepts and practices. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matte n, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate So cial Responsibility Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12 (1), 85 105. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (5), 752 766. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristi c and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. Uleman & J. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended Thought: Limits of awareness, intention, and control (pp.212 252). New York NY : The Guilford Press. Clark, C. E. (2000). Differenc es between public relations and corporate social responsibility: An analysis. Public Relations Review, 26 (3), 363 380. impressions of corporate logos in the communication s industry. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37 (4) 405 415.
117 Cone Inc. (2010). Companies fail to engage consumers on environmental and social issues. Shared responsibility study. Retrieved from http://www.conein c.com Commission of the European Communities (2001). Promoting a European framework for corporate social r esponsibility Retrieved from http://www.businessinsociety.eu /resources/3038 Dahlsr ud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15 (1), 1 13. Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Man agement Review, 2 (3), 70 76. Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16 (2), 312 322. Daw, J. (2006). Cause marketing for nonprofits: Partner for purpose, p assion a nd p rofits. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Dean, D. H., & Biswas, A. (2001). Third party organization endorsement of products: An advertising cue affecting consumer prepurchase evaluation of goods and services. Journal of Advertising, 30 (4) 41 57 DeCoster, J., Ise lin, A., & Gallucci, M. (2009). A conceptual and empirical examination of justifications for dichotomization. Psychological Methods, 14 (4), 349 366. De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for f air trade coffee. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 39 (2), 363 385. Dimitri, C., & Venezia, K. M. (2007). Retail and Consumer Asp ects of the Organic Milk Market. Economic Research Service Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/ Publications/LDP/2007/05May/LDPM15501/ Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review 20 (1), 65 91. Economist. (2008 January 17). Just good business. The Economist Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/10491077 Evan, M. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern co rporation: Kantian capitalism. I n T. Beauchamp and N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical Theory and Business ( pp. 75 93 ) Engl ewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Fireworker, R. B., & Friedman, H. H. (1977). The effects of endorsements on product evaluation. Decision Scien ce, 8 (3), 576 583.
118 FLO (Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International). ( 2011 ) Coffee. Retrieved from http://www.fairtrade.net/coffee.0.html Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakehold er approach Boston, MA: Pitman. Friedman, M. (1970 September 13 ). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine 13, 122 126. Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. (1961). Capitalism and Freedom Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Frederick, W. C. (2006). Corporation, be good! The story of corporate social r esponsibility. Indianapolis, IN: Dogear Publishing. Frederick, W. C. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: Deep roots, flourishing growt h, promising future. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matte n, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 522 531 ) Oxford, E ngland: Oxford University Press Garriga, E. & Mel, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Ma pping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53 (1), 51 71. Giberson,R., & Hulland, J. (1994). Using logos as cues to recognition: A preliminary study. Working paper series 94 24, Western Business School, University of Western Ontario. Giovannucci, D. ( 2001). Sustainable coffee survey of the North American specialty coffee industry Philadelphia, PA: Summit Foundation. Goldman, R., & Papson, S. (1996). Sign wars: The cluttered landscape of advertising. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Gotlieb, J. B., & Sare l, D. (1991). Comparative advertising effectiveness: The role of involvement and source credibility. Journal of Advertising, 20 (1), 38 45. Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Commu nication Methods and Measures, 1 (1) 77 89. Henderson, P. W., & Cote, J. A. (1998). Guidelines for selecting or modifying logos. Journal of Marketing 62 (2), 14 30. Henley, W. H., Jr., Philhours, M., Ranganathan, S. K., & Bush, A. J. (2009). The effects of symbol product relevance and religiosity on consumer perceptions of Christian symbols in advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 31 (1), 89 103.
119 Irwin, J. R., & McClelland, G. H. (2003). Negative consequences of dichotomizing con tinuous predictor variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (3), 366 371. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106 (2), 290 314. Jun, J. W., Cho, C H., and Kwon, H. J. (2008) The role of affect and cognition in consumer evaluations of corporate visual identity: Perspectives from the United States and Korea. Brand Management, 15 (6), 382 398. Kamins, M. A., & Marks, L. J. (1991). The perception of kosher as a third party certif ication claim in advertising for familiar and unfamiliar brands. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19 (3), 177 185. Keller, K. L. (2009). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand e quity New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall. K im, S., & Park, H. (2009). Corporate social responsibility as an organizational attractiveness/relationship building role for prospective public relations practitioners. Paper presented at the 59 th Annual International Communication Association Conference, Chicago IL Kim, Y., & Ferguson, M. A. (June, 2010). Corporate social responsibility: Impact of perceived motives and prior reputation on e ffects of fit of CSR programs. Paper presented at the 60 th Annual International Communication Association Conferen ce, Singapore. Kohli, C., Suri, R., & Thakor, M. (2002). Creating effective logos: Insights from theory and practice, Business Horizons, 45 (3), 58 64. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005) Corporate social r esponsibility: Doing the most good for your company and yo ur cause New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Krippendorff, K. (1970). Estimating the reliability, systematic error and random error of interval data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30 (1) 61 70. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Contentanalysis: An introdu ction to its methodology (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Leippe, M., & Elkin, R. A. (1987). When motives clash: Issue involvement and response involvement as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (2), 269 278. Levi ne, T. R., & Hullett, C. R. (2002). Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28 (4), 612 625.
120 Liao, C C. (1992). Message effects in communicating corporate social responsibili ty. Lin, S. Y. (2005). A public relations campaign of corporate social responsibility: A test of University of Florida, FL. Logsdon, J. M., & Wood, D. J. (2002). Business citizenship: From domestic to global level of analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (2): 155 87. Lyon, L., & Cameron, G. T. (2004). A relational approach examining the interplay of prior reputation and i mmediate response to a crisis. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16 (3), 213 241. Madrigal, R., & Boush, D. M. (2008). Social responsibility as a unique dimension of brand personality and con Psychology & Marketing, 25 (6), 538 564. Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32 (1), 3 19. Maloni, M. J. & Brown, M. E. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the su pply chain: An application in the food. Journal of Business Ethics, 68 (1), 35 52. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43 (1) 1 18 Mel, D. (2008). C orporate social responsibility theories. In A. Crane, A. McWilli ams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. S i e gel (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 47 82 ) Oxford, E ngland: Oxford University Press Mitchell, A. A. (1986). The effect of verbal and visual components of advertisements on brand attitudes and attitude toward the advertisement. The Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (1), 12 24. Miniard, P. W., Bhatla, S., Lord, K. R., Dickson, P. R., & Unnava, H. R. (1991). Picture based persu asion processes and the moderating role of involvement. The Journal of Consumer Research 18 (1), 92 107. Market and Opinion Research International Retrieved from http://www.ipsos mori.com/ Murphy, P. E. (1978). An evolution: Corporate social responsiveness. University of Michigan Business Review 30 (6), 19 25 Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility in itiatives. Journal of Advertising, 36 (2), 63 74.
121 Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78 (2). 311 329. Pearson, K. (1911). On a correction needful in the case of the correlation ratio. Biometrika, 8 254 256. P erez, R. F. (2009). Effects of perceived identity based on corporate social responsibility: The role of consumer identification with the company. Corporate Reputation Review, 12 (2), 177 191. Perloff, R. M. (2010). The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21th century ( 4th Ed.). New York, NY : Routledge. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol ogy 37 (10) 1915 1926. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1980). Effects of issue involvement on attitude in an advertising context. In G. Gorn & M. Goldberg (Eds.), Proceeding of the Division 23 Program (pp. 75 79). Montreal, Canada: Division 23 of the American Psychological Association. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context. Advances in Consumer Research 8, 20 24 Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46 (1), 69 81. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. ( 1986a). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change New York, NY: Springer Verlagnc. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19 123 205. Petty, R., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research 10 (2) 135 146. Petty, R. E., Kasmer, J. A., Haugtvedt, C. P., & Cac ioppo, J. T. (1987). Source and likelihood model. Communication Monograph 54 (3) 233 249. Pittard, N., Ewing, M., & Jevons, C. (2007). Aesthetic theory and logo design: Examinin g consumer response to proportion across cultures. International Marketing Review, 24 (4), 457 473.
122 Pomering, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2008). Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: Are consumers aware of CSR initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics 85 (2) 285 301. Preston, L. E., & Post, J. E. (1975). Private management and public policy: The principle of public responsibility Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (2003). The influence of spokesperson trustwor thiness on message elaboration, attitude strength, and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (4), 408 421. Raju, S., Unnava, H. R., & Montgomery, N. V. (2009a). The effect of brand commitment on the evaluation of nonpreferred brands: A disconfirmation process. Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (5), 851 863. Raju, S., Unnava, H. R., Montgomery, N. V. (2009b). The moderating effect of brand commitment on the evaluation of competitive brands. Journal of Advertising, 38 (2), 21 35. Reeves, B ., & Ferguson DeThorne, M. A. (1980). Measuring the effect of messages about social responsibility. Public Relations Review, 6 (3), 135 146. Ross, J. K., Patterson, L. T., & Stutts, M. A. (1992). Consumer perceptions of organizations that use cause related marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20 (1), 93 97. Schonlau, M., Fricker, R. D., & Elliot, M. N. (2002). Conducting research surveys via e mail and the w eb Santa Monica, CA: Rand Publishing. Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Cor porate social responsibility: A three domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13 (4), 503 530. Shaw, D., & Clarke, I. (1999). Belief formation in ethical consumer groups: An exploratory study. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 17 (2/3), 109 119. Simonin B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (1), 30 42. Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell. Smith, S.M., & Alcron, D. S. (1991). Cause marketing: A new direction in the marketing of corporate responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing 8 (3) 19 35. Snyder, A. (1993 December 6 ). Brand ing: Coming up for more air. Brandweek 34 24 48.
123 Stafford, M. R., Tripp, C., & Bienstock, C. C. (2004). The influence of advertising logo characteristics on audience perceptions of a nonprofit theatrical organization. Journal of Current Issues and Resear ch in Advertising, 26 (1), 37 45 Tang, E., Fryxell, G. E., & Chow, C. S. F. (2004). Visual and verbal communication in the design of eco label for green consumer products. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 16 (4), 85 105. Taylor, V. A., Halstead, D., Haynes, P. J. (2010). Consumer responses to Christian religious symbols in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 39 (2), 79 92. Tian, Z., Wang, R., & Yang, W. (2011). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility in China. Journal of Business Et hics, Online First doi: 10.1007/s1055101007166 Todorov, A., Chaiken, S., & Henderson, M. D. (2002). The Heuristic Systematic Model of social information processing. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and pra ctice (pp.195 211). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Walsh, M. F. (2005). Consumer response to logo shape redesign: The influence of brand commitment. ( Doctoral dissertation ). University of Pittsburgh PA Walsh, M. F., Winterich, K. P., & Mittal, V. (2010). Do lo go redesigns help or hurt your brand? The role of brand commitment. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19 (2), 76 84. Wartick, S. L. & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of t he corporate social performance model. The Academy of Management Review 10 (4 ), 758 769. Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to cause related marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17 (2), 226 238. Whole Foods Ma rket. (2005). Nearly two thirds of Americ ans have tried organic goods and b everages Whole Foods Market Press Room. Retrieved from http://wholefoodsmarket.co m/pressroom/blog/2005/11/18/nearly two thirds of americans have tried organic foods and beverages/ Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2006). Mass media research: An introduction (8 th ed.). Belmont: Thomson Higher Education. Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate so cial responsibility: Three key approaches. Journal of Management Studies 43 (1), 93 114. Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16 (4), 691 718.
124 Wood, D. J., & Logsdon, J. M. (2002). Business citizenship: F rom individuals to organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, Ruffin Series, 3 59 94. Wyer, R. S., Jr., Hung, I. W., & Jiang, Y. (2008). Visual and verbal processing strategies in comprehension and judgment. Journal of Consumer Psychology,18 (4) 244 257. Z aichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23 (4), 59 70. Zakia, R. D., & Nadin, M. (1987). Semiotics, advertising, and marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 4 (2), 5 1 2.
125 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH University in 2008 with a double major in public relations/adver tising and telecommunications. she served as a radio reporter at her community radio station, Bundang FM, Korea, and a part time radio writer for TBS e FM, Seoul, Korea. While at the University of Florida, she actively participated in research and successfully accepted the following n ational conferences with her coauthors: The 97th National Communication Association (NCA) Annual Convention 2011, the 61th International Communication Association (ICA) Annual Conference 2011, the 94th Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Commu nication (AEJMC) Annual Conference 2010, and the AEJMC Mid winter Conference 2009. Her research areas are corporate social responsibility; health communication; new media, such as social media; and public relations, in general. She graduated in the summer of 2011 and received an M.A. in mass communication with emphasis in public relations from the University of Florida