<%BANNER%>

The Effectiveness of Consumer Characteristics in Cause-Related Marketing Campaigns

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0045353/00001

Material Information

Title: The Effectiveness of Consumer Characteristics in Cause-Related Marketing Campaigns the Role of Involvement in the Theory of Planned Behavior
Physical Description: 1 online resource (157 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Lee, Jaejin
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2013

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: advertising -- attitude -- behavior -- cause -- consumer -- intention -- involvement -- marketing -- norms -- purchase
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Given the increased interest in cause-related marketing in the marketing arena, there were several goals to this study. First, it was intended to add to the body of knowledge about cause-related marketing in the field of advertising and marketing studies. The second goal was to test the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) model, which was widely applied in health-related behaviors, and apply it to the advertising/marketing studies. By doing so, the scope of theory was able to be broadened. The final goal sought to increase the predictive power of the TPB model by adding additional variables. By adding additional social norms(descriptive norms and moral norms) to the original model, this extended TPB model explained more variance in the intention to purchase a cause-related product than the original model with injunctive norms only. This study found an effectiveness of level of cause involvement in the extended TPB model. There were statistically significant effect of attitude toward the cause-related product consumption, social norms (injunctive, descriptive, and moral norms), perceived consumer effectiveness on purchase intentions. Especially,moral norms showed a strongest effect among these variables. This study also found the negative effects of injunctive and descriptive norms on purchase intentions. Implications and limitations are discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jaejin Lee.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local: Adviser: Morton, Cynthia R.
Local: Co-adviser: Treise, Deborah M.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2015-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID: UFE0045353:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0045353/00001

Material Information

Title: The Effectiveness of Consumer Characteristics in Cause-Related Marketing Campaigns the Role of Involvement in the Theory of Planned Behavior
Physical Description: 1 online resource (157 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Lee, Jaejin
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2013

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: advertising -- attitude -- behavior -- cause -- consumer -- intention -- involvement -- marketing -- norms -- purchase
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Given the increased interest in cause-related marketing in the marketing arena, there were several goals to this study. First, it was intended to add to the body of knowledge about cause-related marketing in the field of advertising and marketing studies. The second goal was to test the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) model, which was widely applied in health-related behaviors, and apply it to the advertising/marketing studies. By doing so, the scope of theory was able to be broadened. The final goal sought to increase the predictive power of the TPB model by adding additional variables. By adding additional social norms(descriptive norms and moral norms) to the original model, this extended TPB model explained more variance in the intention to purchase a cause-related product than the original model with injunctive norms only. This study found an effectiveness of level of cause involvement in the extended TPB model. There were statistically significant effect of attitude toward the cause-related product consumption, social norms (injunctive, descriptive, and moral norms), perceived consumer effectiveness on purchase intentions. Especially,moral norms showed a strongest effect among these variables. This study also found the negative effects of injunctive and descriptive norms on purchase intentions. Implications and limitations are discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jaejin Lee.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local: Adviser: Morton, Cynthia R.
Local: Co-adviser: Treise, Deborah M.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2015-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID: UFE0045353:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CONSUMER CHARACTERISTICS IN CAUSE RELATED MARKETING CAMPAIGNS: THE ROLE OF INVOLVEMENT IN THE THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR By JAEJIN LEE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Jaejin Lee

PAGE 3

3 To my loving and supportive husband and family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to all the people who helped me in the completion of my doctoral program. The successful completion of this study could not have been accomplished without their assistance. First, I would like to thank my family for their support and love. I am deeply grateful to my beloved husband, Yoengchul Cha, who has always been there with great love, support, encouragement, and companionship during every single moment in my life. My par ents, Yong Hyun Lee and Won Ja Seo, who are the greatest heroes in my entire life, have supported me with their strong belief and eternal love. I am also thankful for my sisters and brothers, Jaeseo, Yujin, Joosub, Jinwoong (brother in law), my lovely neph ew, Eunho, and niece, Jiho, for their unwavering love, belief, and caring. My heartfelt appreciation is extended to my parents in law, Jong Ryul Cha and Kwang Ok Kim, who have supported me with love. I would like to thank my American parents, Darwin and My ra, for their unconditional love and guidance since we met at the lovely in me, it would have been impossible to achieve all the things today. I would like to give spe cial thanks to my wonderful chair and advisor, Dr. Cynthia R. Morton, for her attentive support, invaluable guidance, and encouragement with the warmest heart. I also would like to extend my sincere gratitude to Dr. Debbie M. Treise as my co chair and as a mentor for her generosity, encouragement, advice, and support during the program. Dr. John C. Sutherland deserve special words of thanks. He inspired me to advance my knowledge. His thoughtful guidance and openness allowed me to share some of my research questions with him and develop more on our discussion. I also owe my appreciation to Dr. Kelli Brown for her kindness with warm

PAGE 5

5 hearted personality and supports. She inspired me to advance my knowledge in social marketing. I also want to express my sincer e appreciation to several other faculty members. I thank Dr. Michael Weigold, who became one of my teaching mentor. His teaching philosophy and style inspired me and helped me to build my own. I also thank Dr. Jorge Villegas, Dr. J. Robyn Goodman, and Dr. Jon D. Morris who were my thesis chair and committee members when I was finishing my Masters' program at the UF. Without their strong support, I might not have pursued my doctoral studies. I also want to thank Dr. Troy Elias for his support and kindness. I am truly thank Dr. Lisa Duke Cornell, Dr. Hyojin Kim, Dr. Julie E. Dodd, Dr. Johanna Cleary, Dr. Sora Kim, Dr. Moon Lee, Dr. Changhoan Cho, Dr. Mary Ann T. Ferguson, Dr. Norman P. Lewis, Jody, and Kimberly for their support and help during this program. Lastly, I would also like to express my special gratitude to the great friends whom I have met in Florida, including Korean Mass CommuniGators and my colleagues, and classmates. Because of them, my life in graduate school was bearable and fun. Thanks.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTIO N ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 14 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 17 Overview of the Study ................................ ................................ ............................. 18 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 20 Corporate Social Responsibility as a Foundation of Cause Related Marketing ...... 20 Marketing with Corporate Social Responsibility: Corporate Societal Marketing ...... 24 Cause Related Marketing ................................ ................................ ....................... 28 Definitions of Cause Related Marketing ................................ ..................... 29 Evolution of Cause Related Marketing: From Origin to Current Trend ....... 31 The Classification of Cause Related Marketing Implementation Strategies ............ 32 Contrasts with Corporate Philanthropy ................................ ................................ ... 36 Benefits and Risks of Cause Related Marketing ................................ ..................... 38 Benefit s of Cause Related Marketing for All ................................ ..................... 38 Benefits for companies ................................ ................................ .............. 38 Benefits for the cause and non profit organizations ................................ ... 40 Benefits for customers ................................ ................................ ............... 41 Keys to Successful and Effectiv e Cause Related Marketing ................................ .. 44 3 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................ ................................ ............ 47 Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) ................................ ................................ ......... 47 Attitude toward the Behavior ................................ ................................ ............ 49 Subjective Norms ................................ ................................ ............................. 49 Perceived Behavioral Control ................................ ................................ ........... 50 The Inclusion of Other Variables in the Theory of Planned Behavior ............... 52 Proposed TPB's Application to Cause related Marketing ................................ 58 Injunctive n orms ................................ ................................ ......................... 58 Descriptive norms ................................ ................................ ...................... 59 Moral n orms ................................ ................................ ............................... 59 Perceived c onsumer e ffectiveness ................................ ............................ 60 Purchase intention ................................ ................................ ............................ 62

PAGE 7

7 Cause I nvolvement ................................ ................................ ................................ 63 Summary of Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ......................... 68 4 METHOD ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 71 Research Design Overview ................................ ................................ .................... 71 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 72 Independent Variables: Cause Involvement ................................ ..................... 72 Dependent Variables ................................ ................................ ........................ 73 Attitude toward p urchasing a cause related product ................................ .. 73 Soc ial norms: Injunctive, descriptive, and moral norms ............................. 73 Perceived consumer e ffectiveness ................................ ............................ 74 Purchase i ntentions ................................ ................................ ................... 74 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 74 Sampling ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 75 Selection of Cause Conditions ................................ ................................ ................ 76 Development of Scenarios ................................ ................................ ...................... 78 Pilot Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 79 Sampling and Sample Profile ................................ ................................ ........... 80 Reliability Check ................................ ................................ ............................... 80 Main Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 81 5 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 88 Description of Sample ................................ ................................ ............................. 88 Level of Cause Involvement ................................ ................................ .................... 89 Confounding Check ................................ ................................ ................................ 90 Reliability Check ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 90 Descriptive Statistics ................................ ................................ ............................... 90 Attitude toward Cause related Product Consumption ................................ ....... 9 1 Soc ial Norms ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 91 Perceived Consumer Effectiveness ................................ ................................ .. 92 Purchase Intention s ................................ ................................ .......................... 92 Hypotheses Testing ................................ ................................ ................................ 92 Correlation Analysis ................................ ................................ ......................... 93 H1. Effects of Attitude toward Cause Related Product Consumption ............... 93 H2. Effects of Social Norms ................................ ................................ .............. 94 H2a. Injunctive norms ................................ ................................ ................ 94 H2b. Descriptive n orms ................................ ................................ .............. 94 H2c. Moral n orms ................................ ................................ ....................... 95 H3. Effects of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness ................................ ........... 95 H4. The Comparison between the original TPB model vs. the extended TPB model: Inclusion of additional norm variables ................................ ............... 96 H5 & H6 Effects of Cause Involvement ................................ ........................... 99 6 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 117

PAGE 8

8 Summa ry of Results ................................ ................................ .............................. 118 Effects of Attitude toward Cause Related Marketing ................................ ...... 118 Effects of Social Norms ................................ ................................ .................. 119 Perceived Consumer Effectiven ess ................................ ................................ 120 Extended TPB Model ................................ ................................ ..................... 121 Effects of Cause Involvement ................................ ................................ ......... 122 Theoretical and Practical Implications ................................ ................................ .. 122 Theoretical Imp lications ................................ ................................ .................. 122 Practical Implications ................................ ................................ ...................... 124 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research ................................ ................ 124 APPENDIX A STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT ................................ ............................ 128 B CAUSE INVOLVEMENT SURV EY ................................ ................................ ....... 130 C MAIN SURVEY ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 134 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 142 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 157

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 List of hypotheses ................................ ................................ ............................... 69 4 1 Descriptive statistics of cause involvements ................................ ....................... 78 4 2 S ample demographic profiles (Pilot study) ................................ ......................... 83 4 3 Attitude s measurement items ................................ ................................ ............. 84 4 4 Social norms measurement items ................................ ................................ ...... 84 4 5 Perceived c onsumer e ffectiveness m easurement i tems ................................ ..... 85 4 6 Purchase intentions measurement items ................................ ............................ 85 4 7 Sample demographic profiles from p ilot study ................................ .................... 86 4 8 Means and standard deviations from pilot study ................................ ................. 87 4 9 Results of one way ANOVA for cause involvement ................................ ............ 87 4 10 Reliability check ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 87 5 1 Sample demographic profile ................................ ................................ ............. 102 5 2 Result of one way ANOVA for cause involvement ................................ ............ 104 5 3 Result of one way ANOVA for purchase experience ................................ ........ 105 5 4 Means and standard deviations for measures of attitudes ............................... 105 5 5 Means and standard deviations for measures of social norms ......................... 106 5 6 Means and standard deviations for measures of perceived consumer effectiveness ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 107 5 7 Means and standard deviations for measures of purchase intentions .............. 107 5 8 Correlation for measurement model: High involvement ................................ .... 108 5 9 Correlation for measurement model: Low involvement ................................ .... 108 5 10 Effects of attitudes toward the cause related marketing on purch ase intentions: High involvement ................................ ................................ ............. 109

PAGE 10

10 5 11 Effects of attitudes toward the cause related marketing on purchase intentions: Low involvement ................................ ................................ ............. 109 5 12 Effects of injunctive norms on purchase intentions : High involvement ............. 109 5 1 3 Effects of injunctive norms on purchase intentions : Low involvement .............. 109 5 1 4 Effects of descriptive norms on purchase intentions : High involvement ........... 110 5 1 5 Effects of descriptive norms on purchase intentions : Low involvement ............ 110 5 1 6 Effects of moral norms on purchase intentions : High involvement ................... 110 5 1 7 Effects of moral norms on purchase intentions : Low involvement .................... 110 5 1 8 Effects of perceived consumer effectiveness on purchase intentions : High involvement ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 111 5 1 9 Effects of perceived consumer effectiveness on purchase intentions : Low involvement ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 111 5 20 Multiple regression analysis for the original TPB model (Stepwise): High involvement ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 111 5 2 1 Multiple regression analysis for the original TPB model (Stepwise): Low involvement ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 112 5 2 2 Hierarchical multiple regressions for the extended TPB model: High involvement ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 112 5 2 3 Hierarchical multiple regression analysis for the extended TPB model: Low involvement ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 113 5 2 4 ANOVA of multiple regression analysis ................................ ............................ 113 5 2 5 Summary of model comparison between high vs. low involvement .................. 114

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Proposed Conceptual Model ................................ ................................ .............. 70 5 1 The extended TPB model in high involvement cause ................................ ....... 115 5 2 The extended TPB model in low involvement cause ................................ ........ 116

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the Univers ity of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CONSUMER CHARACTERISTICS IN CAUSE RELATED MARKETING CAMPAIGNS: THE ROLE OF INVOLVEMENT IN THE THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR By Jaejin Lee May 2013 Chair: Cynthia R. Morton Cochair: Debbie M. Treise Major: Mass Communication Given the increased interest in cause related marketing in the marketing arena, there were several goals to this study. First, it was intended to add to the body of knowledge about cause related marketing in the field of advertising and marketing studies. The second goal was to test the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) model, which was widely applied in health related behaviors, and apply it to the advertising/marketing studies. By doing so, the scope of theory was able to be broadened. The final goal sough t to increase the predictive power of the TPB model by adding additional variables. By adding additional social norms (descriptive norms and moral norms) to the original model, this extended TPB model explained more variance in the intention to purchase a cause related product than the original model with injunctive norms only. This study found an effectiveness of level of cause involvement in the extended TPB model. There were statistically significant effect of attitude toward the cause related product c onsumption, social norms (injunctive, descriptive, and moral norms),

PAGE 13

13 perceived consumer effectiveness on purchase intentions. Especially, moral norms showed a strongest effect among these variables. This study also found the negative effects of injunctive and descriptive norms on purchase intentions. Implications and limitations are discussed.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The use of cause related marketing appears to be the emerging trend in today's marketplace based on the increasing recognition of its potential outcomes (Drumwright, 1996; Hoeffler & Keller, 2002; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). Cause related marketing is defi ned as "a commercial activity by which businesses and charities or causes form a partnership with each other to market an image, product or service for mutual benefit" (Adkins, 1999, p. 11). In a market characterized by increasing competition among manufac turers and greater demands by consumers, cause related marketing offers a strategic marketing promotional tool for differentiating a brand or a company with added value (Broderick, Jogi, & Garry, 2003; King, 2001). This marketing strategy benefits not onl y companies, but also the community, customers, and nonprofit organizations, while generating increased community goodwill, customer morale, and revenues for both the company and the nonprofit sector (Andreasen, 1996; Davison, 1997; Pringle & Thompson, 199 9). According to Kerr, Johnston, and Beatson (2008), cause related marketing positively affects both for profit and nonprofit partners, as well as consumers. For companies, cause related marketing is a vehicle for achieving economic and social profits. Cau se related marketing gives a company the opportunity to differentiate itself from competitors, to gain competitive advantages in the product category, to maintain favorable brand image, and to generate added value for its products that influence financial performance. Nonprofit organizations that identified with cause related agendas can benefit from cause related marketing donations and "from having a high public exposure that makes the cause as well as the non profit organization known" to the public (Moo smayer & Fuljahn, 2010, p.

PAGE 15

15 544). Consumers can achieve a sense of well being and improve their personal life value and altruism through socially responsible consumption by purchasing a product from companies that employ cause related marketing (Kropp at al ., 1999). Roy and Graeff (2003) identified two perspectives for viewing cause related marketing: the tactical view and the strategic view. The tactical view of cause related marketing is defined as "a tactic designed to stimulate short term sales of a pr oduct by making the amount of a contribution to a cause contingent upon unit sales" (Roy & Graeff, 2003, p. 164). For example, Macy's the second largest department store chain in the U nited States (www.macysinc.com) has maintained mutual partnerships with more than 10,000 local and national charities, including the American Heart Association (AHA). Through its partnership with the AHA, Macy's initiated a cause related marketing campaign that offered customers a savings certificate in exchange for a $2 donat ion to shopping (CauseMarketingForum.com, 2011). With more than 1,000 stores participating, Macy's was able to raise more than $36 million in 20 09 alone, an 8% increase from the amount raised during the 2008 campaign. In this way, Macy's was able to carry out firm's social responsibility mission (Till & Nowak, 2000), to increase a short term sales of a product, and strengthen consumer loyalty (Roy & Graeff, 2003). In contrast to the tactical view of cause related marketing, the main purpose of the strategic view of cause related marketing is that "it should be used as a strategy to link a firm's products with causes or issues that resonate with its target market" (R oy & Graeff, 2003, p. 164). This idea recognizes cause related marketing as a long term commitment of the firm to achieving the company's philanthropic mission while

PAGE 16

16 of cause related marketing using the macro perspective. TOMS, a for profit company with a nonprofit mission, gives a pair of new shoes to a child in need with every pair a customer purchases. In 2010, the company gave more than one million pairs of shoes to childre n in need around the world (TOMS, 2011). With the company's strong philanthropic mission, TOMS Shoes was able to build the new business model of buy one, give one. Also, the company has increased customer satisfaction by giving them a specific reason to pu rchase a product, which is donation of a pair of shoes to someone in need. Company support of social causes has gained prominence as an established marketing communications tool for building corporate image, brand awareness, and brand loyalty in the community (Hoeffler & Keller, 2002; Javaigi, Traylor, Gross, & Lampman, 1994; McD onald, 1991; Polonsky & Macdonald, 2000; Quester, 1997; Turco, 1995; Witcher, Craigen, Culligan, & Harvey, 1991). This distinct form of marketing promotion has experienced positive growth during the past decades (Barone, Miyazaki, & Taylor, 2007). Many lar ge companies, including Yoplait, Avon, and Target, have engaged in cause related marketing since American Express initiated this pioneering concept with support for the Statue of Liberty renovation in 1983 (Krishna & Rajan, 2009). Corporate expenditures fo r cause related marketing have dramatically increased in the past few years around the world, but most significantly in North America (Bloom, Hoeffler, Keller, & Meza, 2006). According to recent data, cause related marketing investments grew by approximate ly 250% during the 2000s (International Event Group [IEG] Sponsorship Report, 2011). In 2011, expenditures in this growing form of

PAGE 17

17 marketing communication were expected to surpass $1.7 billion in North America alone. In this regard, as cause related market ing becomes increasingly common, marketers and advertisers must be strategic in deciding when, where, with whom, and how to implement strategies (Barone et al., 2007). Purpose of the Study Given the growing trend of socially conscious marketing, cause rel ated marketing has received considerable attention in the literature, and many studies have examined the effects of cause related marketing activities from various perspectives. Academic research generally has focused on the effects of cause related market ing on consumer behavior from the firm's viewpoint. Preliminary research efforts examining consumer responses to cause related marketing have investigated the effectiveness of elements of cause marketing campaigns (e.g., cause brand fit, amount of donation price of the product, or company motivation to support cause) with regard to consumer attitudes and purchase intention (Smith & Alcon, 1991; Webb & Mohr, 1998). However, little evidence exists in the current literature with respect to consumer behaviors and target market participation characteristics that affect the outcome of cause related marketing. higher expectations of companies based on their knowledge about a brand (Adkins 1999) and can strongly engage with a company or brand to become advocates for it when it conforms to their values and beliefs. On the other hand, they also have the ability to protest or boycott a company when it does not meet their needs (Adkins, 1999). For example, the latest study from Cone (2010), with a demographically representative U.S. sample of 1,057 adults aged 18 and older, revealed increasing consumer interest in corporate efforts to support social causes. About 80% of survey

PAGE 18

18 respondents in Co ne's survey wanted companies to give them the opportunity to buy a cause related product. Fifty likely to choose a product from a company that supports a certain social cause, and some consumers are wi lling to pay more for a product with added social benefits despite the recession. In addition, 90% of the consumers in this study wanted companies to inform them about the ways in which their business mission supports social causes (Cone, 2010). This empir ical study supports the idea that an incentive exists for corporations to pursue cause related marketing activities. It also suggests that marketers should understand more about the motivational factors that could affect a company's effort to build trust, for its product when using cause related marketing. The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of cause related s, what personal variables motivate consumers to purchase a product from companies that employ cause related marketing? And, do consumers react to cause related marketing based on a level of involvement in the cause? In order to answer these questions, thi s study applies the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) as a framework for examination, which has been used to explain and predict the intention of specific behaviors most commonly in the context of health communication. Overview of the Study This st udy begins with a comprehensive review of the literature related to cause related marketing research that has investigated its effects and outcomes. Also, other theoretical constructs within the classification of cause related marketing implementation stra tegies are discussed. Chapter 3 describes the Theory of Planned

PAGE 19

19 Behavior and review previous studies. In order to understand target markets more concisely, an analysis of definitions and examples from the existing research on consumer characteristics that affect the success of cause related marketing campaigns are conducted. This includes cause involvement and demographic variables. Chapter 4 describes the method to be employed in this study. More specifically, descriptions of study design, the sample of th e study, procedures, and measurement of the variables are discussed. Chapter 5 presents the research findings and Chapter 6 discusses theoretical/practical implications for the research findings. Chapter 6 also addresses the limitations of this study and recommendations for future research.

PAGE 20

20 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Cause related marketing is a relatively new phenomenon in the marketing industry and marketing communications literature. However, c ause related marketing has been examined many times in ma rketing literature as a strategy or tactic to achieve consumers' willingness to support companies committed to social objectives. (Adkins, 1999; Barone, Norman, & Miyazaki, 2007; Kotler & Lee, 2005; Liu & Ko, 2011; Rentschler & Wood, 2011; Smith & Alcorn, 1991; Tangari, Folse, Burton, & Kees, 2010; Trimble & Rifon, 2006; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988; Webb & Mohr, 1988). Corporate Social Responsibility as a Foundation of Cause Related Marketing Researchers have examined cause related marketing in the context o f corporate social responsibility, along with the marketing benefits resulting from corporate efforts toward social goals while building a good image for its consumers (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Barone et al., 2007; Drumwright, 1996; Menon & Menon, 1997). Enthusiasm for corporate social responsibility has been applied in marketing literature in response to consumer and industry needs for sustainable corporate citizenship (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004). Yet, cause related marketing is not synonymous with corporat e social responsibility because corporate social responsibility is a broader and more complex concept than cause related marketing and covers a wider range of social responsibilities. According to Frederick (2008), corporate social responsibility occurs when a business firm, through the decisions and policies of its executive leaders, consciously and deliberately acts to enhance the social well being of those whose lives are affected by the firm's economic operations" (p. 522). Sheikh and Beise Zee (2011 ) define

PAGE 21

21 corporate social responsibility as "good citizenship, or being a good company that is emphasizes the importance of being a good corporate citizen that is expecte d to "be profitable, obey the law, engage in ethical behavior, and give back through philanthropy" (p. 1 consideration of and response to issues beyond the narrow economic, t echnical and multi faceted nature of corporate social responsibility such as "econ omic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time" (p. 36). These four aspects of corporate social responsibility economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (philanthropic) responsibilities s uggest that a corporation not only has to focus on its own profit, but also be responsible under the law and uphold ethical standards as well (Carroll, 1979; Carroll & Buchholtz, 2003). In the past few years, the notion of corporate citizenship has become predominant in corporate social responsibility literature, and now its concept and function has evolved (Capriotti & Moreno, 2006). During the early stages of corporate social responsibility, distribution of wealth with a philanthropic need was a major social agenda for corporations. The top level executives of corporations made corporate social responsibility related decisions based o n their own conscience or company reputation needs (Frederick, 2008). Since the 1960s, corporations have been expected to go beyond voluntary philanthropy. Corporate social responsibility was no longer simply a stewardship tool. Living in the social turmoi l of the 1960s and 1970s with the civil rights

PAGE 22

22 movement or the anti Vietnam War protests, the general public started to require responses from corporations to their social demands (Frederick, 2008). More corporate interaction with stakeholders was required In the 1980s, social demand was broadened to include the development of ethical corporate culture and protection of human rights, including equality, especially in the workplace (Frederick, 2008). In the 1990s, crime, the environment, and homelessness w ere among the top issues Americans wanted companies to support (Cone Inc., 2004). During the 2000s, education, health, the environment, and hunger/poverty were the top four American issues and many firms' corporate social responsibility activities were sup porting those social issues to answer the social demands (Cone Inc., 2004). Recently, corporate social responsibility issues have been broadened to a global scale. Now, corporations address a wide range of social demands. According to Wood (1991) the bas ic idea of corporate social responsibility i s a tightly interwoven relationship between business and society Therefore, corporations as social entities are expected to involve themselves in social issues and help to solve social problems by offering the c Given the potential importance of philanthropic decisions of companies, these decisions can take a variety of forms of corporate social practice. David, Kline, and responsibility activities into three categories: 1) moral/ethical practices, 2) discretionary (philanthropic) practices, and 3) relational practices. According to them moral practices are fairness in the workplace, fair competition with competitors, envir onmentally responsible practices, and

PAGE 23

23 disclosure of company operations. Discretionary practices include contributions to arts and cultural programs in the community, working to increase awareness of social issues (e.g., hunger and domestic violence), suppo rt for child and family issues (e.g., adoption and foster care), and support for public health programs (e.g., the fight against AIDS, cancer, or other disease). Finally, relationship practices are described as corporate efforts to sustain long term relati ons with consumers and a willingness to listen to activities affect not only enhance the overall image of the company, but also the purchase intention. Murray and Vogel (1997) explain that companies that conduct socially responsible activities are more likely to increase consumer identification by making themselves attractive to consumers. Their study suggest ed that respondents had more positive attitudes toward a company and more positive purchasing behavior intentions when the company supported pro social programs. The latest study from Cone (2010) reveals that corporate social responsibility activities diff erentiate products brands or company from similar products. Fifty five percent of the respondents in supports a certain social cause, and some consumers are willing to pay mo re for a product with added social benefits despite the recession (Cone Inc., 2010). Successful corporations need a healthy society, and a healthy society also needs successful companies (Porter & Kramer, 2006). To achieve this goal, business and social ag endas should be integrated. Good citizenship is a sine qua non of corporate social responsibility, and nowadays the public demands that companies do it well

PAGE 24

24 (Porter & Kramer, 2006). To conduct effective corporate citizenship initiatives, understanding what kind of social causes are driving corporate social responsibility activities and how those activities would benefit the company and society may be the first step of corporate social responsibility implementation (Porter & Kramer, 2006). In general, corpor ations are more likely to respond to issues and problems that are most relevant to their most important stakeholders (Kumar, 2009). Marketing with Corporate Social Responsibility: Corporate Societal Marketing Marketers have suggested increasing interest i n the use of corporate social responsibility as a marketing strategy, with the rising recognition of its huge potential (Drumwright, 1996; File & Prince, 1998; Hoeffler & Keller, 2002; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). Corporate societal marketing is one effort to engage with society to satisfy both company's corporate social responsibility and its consumers' needs. Corporate societal economic objective related to social welfare and us[ ing] the resources of the company and/or one The main factor driving the growth of corporate societal marketing is the realization that consumers have changed their attitudes and perceptions concerning the company as a social entity, and their expectation of social responsibility in companies can affect brand equity and the building of a strong brand (Hoeffler & Keller, 2002). Consumers tend to have more favorable attitudes toward companies that support social causes, and those attitudes positively impact purchase intentions (Cone Inc., 2010; David et al., 2005; Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001). There are multiple objectives when it comes to conducting a corporate societal marketing program. Lichtenstein, Dr umwright, and Murphy (2001) explain that the goal

PAGE 25

25 for companies in implementing a successful corporate societal marketing program is programs enable companies to is the initial goal of many companies because it m ay lead to increased consumer recall, awareness, and favorable attitudes toward a company; these positive attitudes have an effect in building strong brand equity (Gray, 2000; Menon & Kahn, 2003). Hoeffler and Keller (2002) suggest that well designed and w ell implemented corporate societal marketing programs could provide many benefits to and important associations with a brand, and they identify six advantages of corporate societal marketing programs in building brand equity: building brand awareness, enha ncing brand image, establishing brand credibility, evoking brand feelings, creating a sense of brand community, and eliciting brand engagement. Kotler and Lee (2005) identify six types of major corporate societal marketing programs: 1) cause promotions, 2) cause related marketing, 3) corporate social marketing, 4) corporate philanthropy, 5) community volunteering, and 6) socially responsible busin ess practices. Cause related marketing is corporate effort to donate a certain percentage of revenue from the sale of a product to a specific social cause (e.g., Yoplait's donation to Susan G. Komen for the Cure). Cause promotions are efforts to increase a wareness and concern about specific social causes using corporate

PAGE 26

26 campaign intended to improve public health, safety, the environment, or community well late 1990s (Kotler & Lee, 2005, p. 23). Corporate philanthropy means a direct monetary or in kind servi ce contribution to a charity or cause. Community volunteering indicates corporate efforts that encourage employees or business partners to volunteer their time for local social causes. Sixth, socially responsible business practices mean that corporations a dopt and conduct more ethical business practices and investments that support social causes (e.g., using Fair Trade certified ingredients for making products). Many companies take one or more corporate societal marketing programs to support the society. For example, some companies esta blished corporate foundation to make monetary gifts or grants such as the Ronald McDonald House Charities by McDonald's or the Tory Burch Foundation by Tory Burch. Some other companies provide goods and/or services. Boston M arket opened a store in the Give Kids the World Village, a non profit organization that supports children with life threatening illness, and its employees volunteer to provide free meals for families staying at the Village. Whatever form of philanthropy a firm uses, the underlying motivations for giving are based on two reasons: 1) the belief that the donation will result in potential rewards and benefits to the company, and 2) corporate benevolence or the intention to express social responsiveness (Campbel l, Gulas, & Gruca, 1999). Marketing of Social Causes: Social Marketing The concept of marketing has been expanded beyond its traditional product oriented model by the inclusions of other aspects such as social demands. The social marketing is one of contr ibutions to its expansion, which is concerned with individual and societal wellbeing (Andreasen, 1994). The concept of social marketing was

PAGE 27

27 introduced by Kotler and Zaltman in the early 1970s. They define social marketing as d control of programs calculated to influence the acceptability of social ideas and involving considerations of product planning, pricing, Andreasen (1997), social marketing is technologies to programs designed to influence the voluntary behavior of target audiences to improve their personal welfare and that of the society of which they are The primary goal of social marketi to a diverse range of social problems and act as guides to influencing behavior (Kotler, Lee, & Andreasen, 2002). For example, muc h of the motivation behind information in the media about issues such as breast cancer awareness, illiteracy, AIDS/HIV education, drunk driving, tobacco use, and heart health can be explained by social marketing. Key to effectively and efficiently promotin g social marketing objectives is engaging with commercial marketing professionals, which can be "a potentially powerful tool for social good" (Andreasen, 2002, p. 11). One strategy is to simultaneously us e cause related marketing that shares the same goal of accruing social contributions and effecting social change (Peattie & Peattie, 2003). Social marketing and cause related marketing share the objective of changing behavior since cause related marketing has led marketing practitioners to promote and buil d their brand value through social contributions (Pringle & Thompson, 2001). However, in social marketing, marketing techniques that are used in the commercial

PAGE 28

28 sector are applied to social issues in the public sector without the goal of selling products or services for profits. Rather, social marketing is an approach to influencing behavior in a direction that the organization seeks to promote. Where cause related marketing campaigns promote attitudinal and behavioral changes toward a product or brand within a cause, social marketing campaigns promote attitudinal and behavioral changes as the end goal, as was done with the Truth camp aign, the anti tobacco campaign targeting adolescents. In recent years, social marketers have successfully branded healthy behavior such as anti smoking, condom use, healthy diets, and sunblock use (Evan, 2008). Cause Related Marketing Cause related marke ting is a relatively new phenomenon in the marketing industry and marketing communications literature. However, since this new kind of marketing strategy emerged in the early 1980s, it has been studied by scholars primarily from the field of marketing (Adk ins, 1999; Barone, Norman, & Miyazaki, 2007; Kotler & Lee, 2005; Liu & Ko, 2011; Rentschler & Wood, 2011; Smith & Alcorn, 1991; Tangari, Folse, Burton, & Kees, 2010; Trimble & Rifon, 2006; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988; Webb & Mohr, 1988). There are many terms similar to cause related marketing used in research, such as cause marketing, cause sponsorship, social issue marketing, corporate issue promotions, corporate social marketing, or pro social marketing (Andreasen, 1996; Andreasen & Drumwright 2000; Berglin d & Nakata, 2005). This study uses the term "cause related marketing" because it explains a wide range of marketing activities related to the partnership between commercial and non profit organization in their effort to optimize the respective interests ea ch has in the association.

PAGE 29

29 Definition s of Cause Related Marketi ng According to Varadarajan and Menon (1988), cause related marketing is "the process of formulating and implementing marketing activities that are characterized by an offer from the firm to contribute a specific amount to a design ated cause when consumers engage in revenue providing exchanges that satisfy organizational and related marketing aims not only to increase the company's revenue with increased transaction volume, but also to contribut e to societal welfare (Nan & Heo, 2007). According to Barone, Normand, and Miyazaki (2007), cause related marketing is a marketing communication strategy designed to promote the achievement of marketing objectives while also supporting social causes. The e ssence is "marketing a product, service, brand, or company with a social cause" (Berglind & Nakata, 2005, p. 443). Generally, with cause related marketing campaign, a portion of sales from the marketed product or service is donated to a specific cause via non profit organization with a mission to support that cause. Researchers have approached cause related marketing with two quite divergent views. These perspectives are characterized as: 1) corporate effort to consider their social responsibility while co nducting their business, and 2) a marketing strategy for beneficial outcomes. In terms of the first view, Webb and Mohr (1988) describe cause related marketing that "provides an excellent context for delving into consumers' interpretation of promotion with a social dimension and exploring their behavioral responses to such corporate do describe cause related marketing as "a promotional strategy that combines public relations and sponsorship strategies where a company makes a philanthropic commitment to a societal need or cause through a specific campaign that is promoted to

PAGE 30

30 related cus more on corporate benefits. Berglind and Nakata (2005) define a cause related marketing as "a donation tied to a cause related marketing as "the most creative an d cost effective product marketing strategy to evolve in years, and one that directly addresses the issue of measured In both cases, the goal of cause related marketing in business is "to do better by doing well" (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). This kind of strategic marketing activity has been used to achieve both economic corporate objectives, such as increasing profit and brand loyalty, and non economic corporate objectives, such as developing employee loyalty to the company and building its reputation or image as a good corporate citizen (Alperson 1995; Davidson 1997, Foley 1998; Graham 1994). In addition, cause related marketing helps to raise funds and awareness for a social issue, while building awareness of the both company a nd nonprofit brand and increasing positive consumer attitudes (Carringer, 1994). Because of its multiple advantages, marketing practitioners started to adopt this innovative marketing communications and promotion strategy in response to higher consumer exp ectations of corporations (Webb & Mohr, 1998). Companies started to adopt cause related marketing as an "added value for their charitable giving activities" (Mullen, 1997, p. 42). I n sum, cause related marketing is a transaction based marketing activity that relies on consumers' product purchases. In other words, a proportion of the sale is donated to the associated cause (Davison, 1997). In cause related marketing

PAGE 31

31 campaigns, to get maximum results, marketers focus on finding the right social cause that m atches the corporate identity and mission, or their existing or potential target consumers' values (Osterhus, 1997). Evolution of Cause Related Marketing: From Origin to Current Trend Over the last thirty years, cause related marketing has evolved. It is rooted in the tradition of corporate philanthropy, which was started more than one hundred years ago by Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller, and other successful businessmen who made tremendous financial contributions to the arts, education, and societies (B erglind & Nakata, 2005). Through those activities, they modeled the principle of giving back to society. Over time, there was more social demands on corporate responsibility and generated a new business model, cause related marketing. It is that the philan thropy became ingrained in the modern business arena and results in various corporate and societal benefits. In the early 1980s, the first cause related marketing program was implemented based on the social activism and social right movement that has star ted since 1960s (Berglind & Nakata, 2005). It was a program developed by Jerry Welsh at American Express (Amex), in which Amex donated a portion of sales to local arts programs in the San Francisco area (Kelley, 1991; Smith, 1994). After huge success with the local program, Amex expanded the program nationwide and linked its giving to the Statue of Liberty restoration project in 1983 (Davidson, 1997). Their contribution to the Statue of Liberty was based on every new card account opened (1 dollar per new ac count), and use of an Amex credit card during the campaign period (1 cent per transaction) (Andreasen, 1996). This innovative program resulted in Amex's contribution of $1.7 million to the restoration project and generated approximately 28 percent increase d card

PAGE 32

32 usage during the campaign (Ptacek & Salazar, 1997). Amex's success motivated other companies to become involved in similar cause related marketing activities (Meyer, 1999). By the mid 1980s, the strategic partnerships between companies and social ca uses had expanded from supporting community based issues, such as the arts, education, and sports to health related issues, such as HIV/AIDS and breast cancer (Davidson, 1997). After the late 1990s, the focus of cause related marketing moved from diseases to broader social issues, and went beyond concerns specific to the United States to issues affecting the international community such as poverty throughout the world or global warming (Polonsky & Wood, 2001). This shift occurred in accordance with the dev elopment of the concept and definitions of corporate social responsibility, to which cause related marketing is rooted. Since Amex first demonstrated cause related marketing in 1983, this strategic marketing promotion became a growing trend in business (P olonsky & Wood, 2001; Ptacek & Salazar, 1997; Webb & Mohr, 1998). According to Gard (2004), donations made through cause related marketing went from essentially zero in the early 1980s to approximately $922 million in the early 2000s. Cause related donatio ns were expected to surpass $1.7 billion in North America in 2011 (IEG, 2011). This result suggest s the notable growth of this newly developed marketing communication over the last three decades. The Classification of Cause Related Marketing Implementatio n Strategies The ways of delivering the cause related marketing campaign have evolved in various forms based on campaign objectives (Berglind & Nakata, 2005; Gupta & Pirsch, 2006; Liu & Ko, 2010; Smith & Alcorn, 1991).

PAGE 33

33 Berglind and Nakata (2005) identify six types of cause related marketing from both economic and noneconomic perspectives. First three types of cause related marketing are from an economic perspective, based on a report from the Cause Marketing Forum a non profit organization of cause markete rs which works as a cause related marketing advocate and other literature: 1) transactional programs, 2) message promotion programs, and 3) licensing programs. Transactional programs have a classic exchange based donation model. In this case, for every uni t sold, a corporation contributes to a particular social cause. For example, Mars, the candy company well known for M&Ms, supports the U.S. Special Olympics through transactional cause related marketing. Mars ran a $50,000 giveaway program for a lucky cust omer who purchased M&Ms. For every winner, Mars awarded $50,000, and at the same time donated the same amount of money to the U.S. Special Olympics. With this campaign, more than 200 million M&M product packages with the U.S. Special Olympic logo were sold in addition to raising awareness and public support for the issue. Message promotion occurs when a company makes some contribution that is not necessarily monetary and is not dependent upon a transaction. Barnes and Noble and the Anti Defamation League, an anti hate group, partnered together to create the "Close the Book on Hate" initiative, which provides lectures and materials to promote racial and cultural tolerance. More than 2 million brochures have been distributed in stores, schools, and by governm ent institutions to promote both the cause and company. Finally, a licensing program, which is considered one of the most prominent forms of cause related marketing, occurs when a non profit organization licenses the use of its name and logo to a company a nd its product. For instance, the World Wildlife Fund

PAGE 34

34 (WWF) licenses the use of is name, logo, and image to Visa/First USA credit card. WWF is given a certain percentage of every credit card transaction. In this case, more than $10 million has been donated to the WWF by Visa. Three additional cause related marketing types from a perspective beyond economics are: 1) issue focused programs, 2) business activity programs, and 3) target focused programs (Berglind & Nakata, 2005). In issue focused programs, a c ompany partners with a non profit organization affiliated with one specific social issue that is strategically selected to support the image of a company. Liz Claiborne initiated an awareness campaign for the Family Violence Prevention Fund, an organizatio n that works against domestic violence. Because Liz Claiborne produces and sells products targeted at women, the cause is a good fit. Therefore, although there is no monetary donation from Liz Claiborne, both the company and non profit earn increased aware ness, of the brand and the issue, in all 50 states and several foreign countries. their operations, like fair trade purchasing, treating employees well, environmenta lly responsible practices, or disclosure of company operations. With this program, companies can build a better reputation among consumers and the broader public. Lastly, target focused programs are those that support a particular consumer group, often a c ore target market. For example, Taco Bell sponsors the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. These campaign programs strengthen the bond between a company and its target markets, and build a good relationship and reputation with them. Liu and Ko (2011) identif ied four main forms of cause related marketing implementation strategies: 1) sponsorship, 2) transaction based, 3) joint promotion, and

PAGE 35

35 4) in kind contribution. Sponsorship refers only to event sponsorship in this case, in which corporate sponsorship must directly benefit a specific non profit charitable event or related social issue. Research suggest s that sponsorship can enhance corporate important to a particular target group (Menon & Kahn, 2003). Transaction based cause social cause based on their profits from each product sold. This kind of partnership between a product or a brand and a charity may create an added value for target consumers, which is a self esteem or self efficacy (Olsen, Pracejus, & Brown, 2003). On the other hand, Strahilevitz and Myers (1998) suggest that companies use the transaction based implementation strategy to t their consumption incentive, as they want to do a good deed to compensate for that feeling. A joint promotion involves cooperation with regard to the advertising effort between a company and a cause. In comparison wi th sponsorship, the joint promotion implementation strategy focuses on the content of the message that an organization seeks to deliver to people rather than attaching to a specific event. The focus of a joint promotion is to produce a joint advertising ca about corporate ethical behavior. According to Nan and Heo (2007), this is closely related to individual's level of involvement in specific social issues or an advertising message in the cause related marketing. Fin ally, in kind donation refers to a non financial corporate contribution toward aiding a social cause. Corporations are usually more willing to donate their products and services than to give cash to the cause (Irwin,

PAGE 36

36 et al., 2003). The range of in kind don ations includes donating products or services, providing corporate volunteers, and donating or making improvements of facilities. Since the market is filled with hyper competition and rapid transactions of media to the consumer, this kind of charitable eff orts, where increased sales is the bottom line, helps propel business forward and gives a company a unique selling proposition to compete in the market (Andreasen, 1996; Berglind & Nakata, 2005). Also, with this strategy, a company creates well established relationship with target consumers who are difficult to reach through traditional types of marketing communications. Contrasts with Corporate Philanthropy Not only do consumers see cause related marketing as another way of giving back to society, but non profit organizations see cause related marketing as a major source of funding (Berglind & Nakata, 2005). That is why cause related marketing is sometime called strategic philanthropy, because cause related marketing is about achieving business objectives, while also concerned with social improvement (Adkins, seriously may endeavor to win support for their efforts through a cause related ause related marketing should not be confused with corporate philanthropy and corporate sponsorship. According to Berglind and Nakata (2005), cause related marketing is "post purchase giving (i.e., after the sale has been made), whereas sponsorship is give n pre purchase (i.e., no sale is necessary for giving to take place), and philanthropy is unrelated to sales" (p. 445). Corporate p hilanthropy. Corporate social responsibility has been carried out through corporate philanthropy, such as donating to charities, and through a company's operational activities such as environmental protection or fair trade in their supply chain

PAGE 37

37 (Berglind & Nakata, 200 5; Bronn & Vrioni, 2011; Sheikh & Beise Zee, 2011). Cause related marketing is a marketing communication strategy with reference to corporate social responsibility (Sheikh & Beise Zee, 2011). It is a unique marketing activity in which the company promises its consumers to donate its financial returns to charitable and deserving causes for each product or service sold (Brink, Odekerken Schroder, & Pauwels, 2006). The goal of cause related marketing is to increase sales and corporate image while contributing to non profit organizations. This unique characteristic differentiates it from philanthropy (Ptacek & Salazar, 1997). According to Mehegan (1995), "philanthropy derives from a corporation's pre tax income, while cause related marketing usually comes out of the advertising and promotion budget" (p. 9). Therefore, this newer strategic giving tool takes "the commercialization of giving farther away from philanthropy" (Polonsky & Wood, 2001, p. 9). Corporate s ponsorship. When a company has decided to embark on a social responsibility program in pursuit of an economic outcome, many firms incorporate social dimensions into their promotional activities and try to do well by doing good (Berglind & Nakata, 2005). Two ways to increase both bottom lines, which appear t o be gaining in popularity, are sponsorship and cause related marketing (Andreasen & Drumwright, 2001; Berglind & Nakata, 2005). Both marketing promotional activities establish a direct association between the company and the social cause, and both contrib ute to the (Polonsky & Wood, 2001). According to Rentschler and Wood (2001), sponsorship is "when a company donates money to a cause in the expectation that sales will be g enerated from

PAGE 38

38 consumers," whereas cause related marketing is "when the sales are driven by the consumer, in the expectation that the company will donate money to the cause" (p. 7). With sponsorship, a company cannot predict that the money spent on donation will result in better sales, as it is difficult to measure cause and effect (Rentschler & Wood, 2001). On the other hand, a company can measure the amount of donation compared with revenue with cause related marketing since it is sales based (Rentschler & Wood, 2001). It is easier to calculate the return from cause related marketing programs because company donations are directly affected by sales from the product or service associated with the social cause (Smith & Alcorne, 1991). Benefits and Risks of C ause Related Marketing Benefits of Cause Related Marketing for All There are several reasons for the growth of cause related marketing. Researchers explain the benefits of cause related marketing for companies, non profit organizations, and consumers in order to help others understand why this trend is occurring (Berglind & Nakata, 2005; Gard, 2004; Polonsky & Macdonald, 2000; Webb & Mohr, 1998). This section will suggest the reasons for participating in cause related marketing campaigns from the perspect ive of companies, non profits, and consumers. Benefits for companies Cause related marketing is used not only to increase sales but also to improve corporate reputation and improve brand image, while increasing funding for the causes they support (Bergli nd & Nakata, 2005). Berglind and Nakata (2005) identify five benefits that for profit companies can gain through a successful cause related marketing program. First, cause related marketing helps corporations achieve increased revenue. A well designed camp aign can be profitable, like it was for American Express

PAGE 39

39 and its Statue of Liberty campaign. According to Berglind and Nakata, cause related marketing is a comparatively more cost efficient marketing program than other efforts and generates more sales with little to no additional expenditures. Second, cause related marketing helps companies build and strengthen their brands. Webb and Mohr (1998) illustrate that consumers have more favorable attitudes toward brands when they are tied to a social cause, even for the youth market. Other studies suggest that 60 percent of teens are more likely to buy from a brand that supports a cause or charity program (Gard, 2004), and that 55 percent of respondents from the 2010 Corporate Social Responsibility Perception Stud y believe that, if a company cares about social causes, then it differentiates the brand among other competitors; 70 percent of those polled was willing to pay more for a cause supporting product (Blecher, 2010). Thus, many companies associate their brand with socially relevant issues to enhance their brand image, brand knowledge, brand loyalty, and brand equity. For example, Ben and Jerry's, The Body Shop, and TOMS shoes apply cause related marketing as a brand building tool. These brands all position them selves as socially responsible and sensitive to social issues by giving a portion of sales to a country where help is needed. Third, cause related marketing activities enhance corporate reputation and image through strategic association with a popular soc ial cause. Through their partnership with a cause, a company can present itself as socially responsible, public minded, and even patriotic (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). Fourth, cause related marketing generates goodwill, which can prevent long term damage t o a company when crises occur. may befall a company, from accounting scandals and bad business practices to cases

PAGE 40

40 of product liability and product tampering" (p. 448). Re search suggests that cause related marketing programs create positive attitudes toward a company even if it has engaged in unethical practices before (Creyer & Ross, 1992). Finally, cause related marketing improves employee recruitment, morale, and retenti on. Studies suggest that 75 percent of respondents consider a company's engagement and commitment to social causes when they decide to work there (Cone, Inc., 2002). Another study reveals that advertising campaigns with social dimensions, such as cause rel ated marketing, sustain mission (Drumwright, 1996). Polonsky and Macdonald (2000) suggest more specific objectives and benefits that for profit companies can achieve t hrough cause related marketing. These include the following: 1) gaining national viability, 2) enhancing corporate image, 3) preventing or overcoming negative publicity, 4) pacifying customer groups, 5) generating incremental sales, 6) promoting repeat pur chases, 7) promoting multiple unit purchases, 8) promoting more varied usage, 9) increased brand awareness, 10) increased brand recognition, 11) enhanced brand image, 12) reinforced brand image, 13) broadened customer base, 14) reaching new market segments and 15) increased level of merchandising activity. Benefits for the cause and non profit organizations Cause related marketing programs provide a number of benefits for non profit organizations. First, from a financial perspective, the major benefit of cause related marketing to non profit organizations is increased funding. With this business alliance, non profit organizations can expand their services and increase their effectiveness, rel ated marketing

PAGE 41

41 provides exposure to an affiliated company's other partners and current or possible consumers. This non financial benefit has positive long term and short term impact on non profit organizations, such as more volunteers from the partnered co mpany (Polonsky & Wood, 2001). Because "a message delivered through an alliance with a well known and respected business is more penetrating and persuasive" (Berglind & Nakata, 2005, p. 448), a non profit achieves better message efficacy than if they promo ted their message by themselves. At the same time, non profit organizations can benefit from extensive publicity garnered by cause related marketing, and enjoy having their presence more well known along with more attention from the public. Finally, just l ike a company, a non profit can enhance its positive image in society (Polonsky & Wood, 2001). Enhancing a non people's attitude and behavior toward the non profit and the causes it supports. Benefits for customers Some of the benefits for customers have been identified by previous research (Polonsky & Wood, 2001; Strahilevitz & Myers, 1998; Webb & Mohr, 1998). First, customers have an opportunity to get additional information and perceived value about a br and and company through cause related marketing programs (Polonsky & Wood, 2001). Consumers believe their purchase helps a social cause, while it also satisfies their personal needs. According to Strahilevitz and Myers (1998), this kind of added value beco mes more important when customers purchase "frivolous" products (e.g., chocolate or cosmetics), which are pleasure oriented products rather than practical products (e.g., laundry detergent or a computer). Another benefit of cause related marketing for cus tomers is "the donation often comes from disposable rather than discretionary income" (Polonsky & Wood, 2005, p.

PAGE 42

42 their shopping routine. The only difference is they switch from a non cause related product to a cause related one in order to feel the self fulfillment of helping a social cause. Therefore, with these kinds of personal benefits, customers tend to be "more comfortable with cause related marketing, donate more wit hout changing their behavior, and feel that they are making a worthwhile contribution to a cause of their choosing" (Polonsky & Wood, 2001, p. 13). Also, customers feel a connection while participating in cause related marketing (King, 2001). For example, when people buy a product that supports breast cancer awareness programs, such as Yoplait with pink lids, they feel a sense of belonging and that they are connected with other consumers who care about the same social cause. In addition, cause related marke ting enables customers to pursue self fulfillment through acts of generosity while they participate in the campaign. Even though their contribution to the social cause might be smaller than they thought, it still gives certain amounts of self respect and s elf efficacy (King, 2011). Buying a product that sponsors a social cause allows customers to fulfill a personal desire to lead an ethical life and be a good citizen, contributing to society (King, 2011). Risks of Cause Related Marketing Cause related ma rketing appears to be a win win win situation for businesses, non profit organizations, and customers. However, this does not mean that cause related marketing is a perfect way of merging marketing and social causes without any problems. Even though a corp oration may do a good job collecting funds for the affiliated social cause, the outcome of the partnership may not be the equal for each, or may sometimes cause more harm than good (Andreasen, 1996). There are three major

PAGE 43

43 problems associated with cause rel ated marketing: deception by the company, skepticism by consumers, and harm to the non profit. Deception. According to Stole (2008), most cause related marketing tends to hidd en business objectives. However, frequently, no specific information is given to the public about how, when, to whom their contributions go. For example, in 2006, several large manufactures partners in project "Red" to raise money for a non profit organiza tion, Global Fund, to support the eradication of AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria in Africa (Product Red, 2007). Companies, including the Gap, Apple, and Motorola, designed red products and promised to donate 50 percent of net profits from the "Red" items t o the Global Fund. However, it turned out that donations varied by licensing contract. For instance, Motorola donated 8 to 10 percent from the sale while others donated 50 percent to the cause (Stole, 2008). Moreover, "Red" is not a charity organization bu t a brand created by a commercial company, Persuaders, which became another third unexpected beneficiary of the cause related marketing campaign. This kind of deception behind the cause related marketing led to unexpected criticism toward the companies, an d it was hard to produce convincing results to the public. Therefore, deception may have hindered the success of the campaign. Skepticism. Consumers are often confused about donation amounts in cause related marketing. They wonder how profits are transfe rred to the non profit and why they have to purchase a product to support social issues (Olsen, Pracejus, & Brown, marketing tool (Bronn & Vrioni, 2001). The cause related marketing campaign may

PAGE 44

44 receive negative feedback and be rejected by the public, especially if it is not properly planned, managed, and communicated (Adkins, 1999). For example, consumer skepticism can arise when a company promotes their cause related mark eting campaign through advertising messages with vague or misleading information about their contributions to the affiliated social cause. Harm to the non profits. There are also risks for non profit partners in cause related marketing. According to File & Prince (1998), "cause marketing is controversial because of its emphasis on self interest rather than altruism and because it threatens to commercialize non profits" (p. 1531). If consumers perceive that corporate motives behind the campaign are not pure ly altruistic, then that may influence attitudes toward the non profit as well. In addition, non profit organizations may become too market oriented, since corporations wish to affiliate their product with popular and respected causes and non profit organi zations (Stole, 2009). At the same time, if people get the impression that a cause or non profit already associated with a commercial marketing promotion will receive enough funds from that partnership, they may withdraw their contributions to those social causes (Andreasen, 1996; Stole, 2009). Because of these issues, non profits can lose their credibility and objectivity. As a result, they could lose potential donations to their cause. Keys to Successful and Effective Cause Related Marketing When conduct ing a cause related marketing, companies should be cautious about selecting the right social cause or non profit one that serves the same target audiences so their affiliation can resonate with more consumers. Kotler and Lee, (2005) suggest that when choos ing the cause or charity, marketers should conduct

PAGE 45

45 vigorous research to understand their target audiences and whether the cause is relevant to them or not. Many researchers and professionals have found that a logical fit between the brand and the social c Tompson, 1999; Lafferty, 2007; Simmons & Becker Olsen, 2006). According to the study, low fit leads to less favorable attitudinal outcomes toward the corporate partnerships (Simmons & Bec ker Olsen, 2006). In addition, the partnership between the company and the social cause or non profit ensures long term commitments (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). Furthermore, it should be visible through many different forms of communication including adve rtising, public relations, and more (Kotler & Lee, 2005). According to Pringle and Thompson (1999), the message in each promotion should be consistent with the messages sent by the company to the public, and the messages should be newsworthy in order to ge nerate publicity. As mentioned previously, many consumers are skeptical and critical of cause related marketing practices and underlying motivations. What companies need to overcome this skepticism from consumers is transparency of the campaign in communi cations to the public (Bronn & Vrioni, 2001). In communication with various stakeholders including employees, suppliers, dealers, consumers, government, and media, a company should clearly present its goals, objectives, and expectations from the strategic alliance with the cause (Andreasen, 1996). Both partners should practice open and honest communication with their audiences to build trust.

PAGE 46

46 According to Polonsky and Woods (2001), most important to the success of a cause related marketing campaign is understanding the customer groups who may engage with the campaign. Marketers should know who the target audiences and markets are and reach and impress them (Polonsky & Woods, 2001). To achieve this goal, more efforts are needed by companies and researchers in order to comprehend target customers' attitudinal and behavioral characteristics including lifestyle, beliefs and values, commitment to alt ruism, and charitable preferences.

PAGE 47

47 CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND According to Bronn and Vrioni (2001), the purpose of cause related marketing is "to attract consumers wanting to make a difference in society through their purchasing" (p. 208). In ord er to entice target consumers to purchase a product with a social cause involved, as previously discussed, understanding target consumers is a crucial component to the success of a cause related marketing campaign. However, consumers' purchasing choice is complex phenomenon influenced by diverse factors. This study integrates several theories relating consumer behavior to personal characteristics in an effort to offer a means for trying to understand the roles some of ons. The following discusses each of the individual constructs from which this study is derived. It provides a holistic explanation of the theoretical framework of this study related to social theories. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) explains speci fically how this study examines target consumer characteristics (i.e., attitudes, social norms, and perceived behavioral control) and their relationship with behavioral intentions (i.e., purchase intention) in the context of cause related marketing. This s tudy also attempts to expand the TPB model with extended normative component (i.e., descriptive norms and moral norms) and additional consumer characteristics (i.e., cause involvements). Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB ; Ajzen, 1985) is a theoretical framework often used to explore determinants of behavioral intention with the purpose of better understanding the motivations behind human behavior. The central premise of the TPB is that behavioral decisions are "the result of a reasoned process in which behaviour is

PAGE 48

48 influenced by attitudes, norms, and perceptions of control over the behavior" (Smith & McSweeney, 2007, p. 367). According to Ajzen and Fishbein (1975; 1980), the personal attitude refers to the extent that per sonal beliefs of the consequences of performing a behavior are considered. The subjective norm represents an individual's behavioral intentions for recycling could be measur ed by personal beliefs about the result of recycling such as recycling is good for the environment or not. In addition, person's perception of the social pressures for recycling also affect to the behavioral outcome. A perceived behavioral control explains an individual's perceived capability of performing a specific behavior. The TPB model proposes that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control influence behavioral outcomes through behavioral intentions. The TPB has evolved from the T heory of Reasoned Action (TRA). The TRA suggests that two determinants affect behavioral intention: personal attitude toward the behavior (personal determinant) and social (subjective) norms as social determinant (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975; 1980). While the T RA tries to explain personal behavioral outcomes over which people have complete control, the TPB additionally seeks to explain non words, even though an individual may have a st rongly positive attitude and follow s additional personal or situational factors such as availability of recycling infrastructures or accessibility to it (Ajzen, 1991; Co nner & Armitage, 1998). Therefore, Ajzen (1991) added an additional determinant (i.e., perceived behavioral control) of behavior into the

PAGE 49

49 original theory. As a result, the TPB postulates three independent determinants of intention including attitude toward s the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Attitude toward the Behavior It is assumed that attitudes are related to behavior (Ajzen, 1991). According to Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), attitude is "the person's judgment that performing the behavior is good or bad, that he (or she) is in favor of or against performing the behavior" (p. 6). A personal attitude is the sum of a series of judgments of favorability toward a set of behaviors. The TPB is based on the assumption that individuals behavior occurs as a result of a logical sequence of cognition based on analysis of available information. An attitude consists of two sub elements: behavioral beliefs and outcome evaluations. More specifically, attitude toward the behavior is com bined with beliefs about the consequences of the behavior and evaluations of the consequences. Previous social psychology literature (Ajzen, 1991; Armitage & Conner, 2001) suggest s that both the TRA and the TPB have been successfully applied in order to id entify attitude as an important variable in the personal decision making process, which relies on his or her intention to perform or not perform an action (i.e., behavioral intention). Furthermore, this theory suggests the mediating role of behavioral inte ntion on the attitude behavior relationships. The relationship between personal attitude and actual behavior is mediated by the intention rather than the impact of attitude on the behavior. Subjective Norms Within the TRA and the TPB, people are more like ly to intend to perform a behavior after they consider social approval for the actual behavior will be granted from others who are important to them, such as family and friends. Subjective norms are "the

PAGE 50

50 person's perceptions of the social pressure put on h im (or her) to perform or not to perform the behavior in question" (p. 6). Subjective norms consist of two components: normative beliefs and motivation to comply with significant others. This is "the perception of how one ought to behave" (Leonard, Cronan, & Kreie, 2004, p. 144). According to Ajzen (1991), norms are "the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior" (p. 187). The role of subjective norms in the TPB has been examined by many researchers who question the power of the p redictive effect of subjective norms on the relationship between attitude and behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Armitage & Conner, 2001; Smith & McSweeney, 2007). The meta analysis by Armitage and Conner (2001), which included 185 independent tests of the theory of p lanned behavior, reveals that a subjective norm is the weakest determinant of behavioral intention, while the effect of attitude is double that of subjective norms. The weak link between subjective norms and intention makes it a less important determinant within the model of the TPB. Norms are important in the model. To clarify the role of norms in the TPB, a number of studies have proposed revised normative components as determinants of the attitude behavior relationship by adding additional social norms t o the model such as descriptive norms and moral norms (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990; Smith & McSweeney, 2007; Terry & Hogg, 1996). Perceived Behavioral Control Even though the TRA is lauded as one "designed to explain virtually any human behavior" (Aj zen & Fishbein, 1980, p. 4), Ajzen (1988) admitted that the TRA was developed "explicitly to deal with purely volitional behaviors" (p. 127). In other words, it might not be an accurate determinant of behavior when the behavior is not completely

PAGE 51

51 under an i ndividual's control (Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen & Madden, 1986). Therefore, Ajzen (1991) proposed a new construct of perceived behavioral control to better predict behavioral intention and be a direct predictor of behavior when the behavior is not entirely under t he individual's volitional control. This new model with the additional determinant of perceived behavioral control is called the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) Like attitude and subjective norms, perceived behavioral control is a belief in ntrol with two components: control belief strength and control belief power. Control belief strength refers to "the perceived likelihood of a given control factor being present," and control belief power is "the extent to which the control giving factor's presence has the power to facilitate or impede performance of the behavior" (Ajzen, 2002, p. 669). Perceived behavioral control can directly influence behavior even if there is a lack of volitional control (such as with an attitude or subjective norm) (Ver meir & Verbeke, 2007). This determinant of behavioral intention reflects both inner control factors such as self efficacy and external factors such as perceived barriers (Sparks, Guthrie, & Shepherd, 1997). According to Ajzen (1991), perceived behavioral c ontrol is efficacy, which is concerned with "judgments of how well one can execute courses of action required to control in the TPB is assumed to reflect previous experiences as well as facilitating conditions or difficulties (Ajzen, 2002; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2007). When people feel they have a lack of resources or opportunities to perform a behavior, they do not hav e strong intentions

PAGE 52

52 to perform that behavior. According to the TPB, perceived behavioral control directly influences behavioral intention if the behavior is not under volitional control. The Inclusion of Other Variables in the Theory of Planned Behavior P revious studies have demonstrated the attitude behavior relationships with the TPB, and ha ve proved the TPB as one of the influential and popular theories of behavior. However, several studies indicated the importance of inclusion of additional variables i n the TPB model to increase the explanatory power of the model (Ajzen, 1991). There have been many attempts to expand the TPB with additional variables such as moral norms, self efficacy, confidence, previous experiences, or demographic variables such as g ender or ages (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990; Conner & McMillan, 1999; Smith & McSweeney, 2007; Terry & Hogg, 1996; Warburton & Terry, 2000). Originally, the TPB is an extension of the TRA (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen, 1988). According to Ajzen and F ishbein (1980), TRA has been "designed to explain virtually any human behavior" (p. 4). The TRA suggests that intention is the immediate antecedent of the behavior and is determined by two factors: attitude toward the behavior and subjective norms. Accordi ng to the theory, attitudes are formed by personal beliefs about the expected outcomes from the performance of a behavior and the subsequent evaluation of those outcomes, while subjective norms consist of the personal perception of social pressures, such a s approval or disapproval of performing the behavior. After the TRA had been applied in many research studies examining the link between attitudes and behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 1991; Berkowitz, 1997; Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990; Sheeran & Orbell, 1999), Ajzen found that the TRA with the assumption that most behaviors are under volitional control is not enough to explain all behaviors (1988). To overcome the weakness of the TRA, Ajzen (1988) introduced the

PAGE 53

53 TPA, which is an expanded model of the TRA with an additional variable: perceived behavioral control, which refers to a person's perception of their ability to perform a behavior. There are two divisions under perceived behavioral control: 1) internal factors, including personal abilities, knowledg e, or skills acquisition, and 2) external factors, such as environmental or situational factors. According to Ajzen (1991), perceived behavioral control can directly predict behavioral outcome. Over the past three decades, both the TRA and the TPB have at tracted enormous attention from researchers interested in exploring the key elements of behavioral intentions, especially for health related behaviors, and the models have received extensive support (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000; Conner & Armitage, 1998; Conner & Sparks, 1996; Godin & Kok, 1996; Sheeran & Taylor, 1999; Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw 1988; Van den Putte 1993). Several quantitative and narrative reviews provide support for the utility of both theories in predicting behavioral intentions and actual performance. First, Sheppard et al. (1988) and Van den Putte (1993) review the explana tory power of the TRA model. A meta analysis by Sheppard and colleagues (1998) suggest ed that, in general, 15% of the variance in behavioral intention was explained by attitudes toward the behavior and subjective norms. Also, Van den Putte (1993) found that 46% of the variance in intention was explained by the TRA model. Second, several meta analytic reviews have supported the TPB with the additional variable (perceived behavioral control) (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000; Armitage & Conner, 2000; Conner & Armitage, 1998; C onner & Sparks, 1996; Godin & Kok, 1996). According to a review by Godin and Kok (1996), the TPB components explained, on average, 41% of the variance in intention and 31% of variance in

PAGE 54

54 behavior. Also, they found that, with the additional variable (percei ved behavioral control), TPB explained an additional 13% of the variance, on average. This means that people are more likely to intend to perform a behavior when they have a belief about their own ability and resources to create the outcome. Madden, Ellen, and Ajzen's longitudinal study (1992) of 10 behaviors with different levels of perceived behavioral control revealed that the TPB model performed no better than the TRA ( R 2 was .23 for both models) for behaviors that were perceived as easy to perform (e.g ., listening to an music). However, when the behaviors were perceived as less controllable (e.g., getting a good night's sleep), there was a substantial contribution of the perceived behavioral control; with an additiona l variance for the intention (R 2 was .13 for the TRA and R 2 was .41 for the TPB). The most recent of these meta analyses by Armitage and Conner (2001) reviewed 185 independent studies and found that the TPB accounted for 39% of the variance in behavioral intentions and 27% of variance in su bsequent behavior. Their study suggest ed that there was more explanatory power in the model for explaining both behavioral intentions and actual behaviors after adding perceived behavioral control to the TRA model as an additional variable. This explains t hat the inclusion of the perceived behavioral control construct in the TRA, adding to the predictive ability of the model. Even though the TPB is considered one of the most dominant models that explain relationships between attitude and behavior, research ers attempt to identify more factors that might increase the predictive power of the original TPB model. Conner and Armitage (1998) reviewed empirical and theoretical evidence to support the addition

PAGE 55

55 of six variables to the TPB model: 1) belief salience me asures, 2) past behavior/habit, 3 ) self identity, 4 ) affective beliefs, 5) self efficacy, and 6) moral norms. First, they suggest that measures of belief salience may provide one way to improve the relationship between attitude and behavior, since both th e TRA and the TPB assume that a person may possess a stronger belief about a particular behavior, and these salient beliefs are assumed to determine ones' attitude. For example, Petkova, Ajzen, and Driver (1995) examined the effect of belief salience using belief importance ratings. The results support ed that the 12 most frequently elicited beliefs had significantly stronger relationships with attitudes than the 12 least frequently elicited beliefs (r= .66 vs. .50). However, the level of the salience of bel iefs may vary due to other external variables. Elliot, Jobber, and Sharp (1995) found that there was a difference of the level of belief salience between groups (e.g., smokers and nonsmokers). Second, the influence of past behavior on the behavioral inten tion or current behavior was considered (Ajzen, 1991; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Mullen, Hersey, & Iverson, 1987). Mullen, Hersey, and Iverson (1987) examined the changes in consumption of sweet and fried foods, smoking, and exercise over an eight month period using the TRA model, and found that past behavior is the best predictor of later behavior. Ajzen (1991) argues that the amount of variance added to the prediction of behavior by past behavior was very small (M=2.1%). Armitage and Conner's (1998) meta anal ysis support ed that, on average, the expanded TPB model, taking into account past behavior, explained 7.2% more of the variance in intentions. Therefore,

PAGE 56

56 they suggest that a model that includes measures of past behavior might be useful to explain the attit ude behavior relationship. Third, several researchers have addressed the extent to which self identity can be an additional factor in the TPB model (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992). Self identity means that an individual sees "him or herself as fulfilling the criteria for any societal role," such as someone who is concerned with green issues. Both identity theory (Stryker, 1968) and the TRA/TPB assume that "behavior is performed as the result of some rational decision making process" (Conner & Armitage, 1998, p. 1444). The role of self to comply with social pressure from others as well as their own need to maintain their self concept. According to Sparks and Shepherd's study (1992) to examine the role of self identity in relation to intentions to consume organic food with the TPB model, self identity is a significant contributor to behavioral intenti ons. Also, Theodorakis (1992) found that the role of self identity has an independent predictive effect on exercise behavior. Based on the review from Conner and Armitage (1998), the range of intention self identity correlations is varied (r=.06 to .71), y et self identity is believed to be an important determinant of intentions. However, their analytical review suggest ed that, on average, self identity accounts for only 1% of the variance in intention with the TPB variables. The influence of self identity t o intention requires further investigation in future studies. Fourth, affective belief is "the personal affective reactions to the performance or nonperformance of a behavior" (Conner & Armitage, 1998, p. 1446), and it is believed to be an important dete rminant of the relationship between attitudes and intentions.

PAGE 57

57 Several researchers examined the influence of "regret" (Richard, de Vries, & van der Pligt, 199 6 ) and found that if individuals have a personal belief that they will have a feeling of regret aft er performing a behavior, then they are less likely to perform the behavior. There was some evidence of affective belief in studies of driving and alcohol use (Parker et al., 1995), AIDS prevention (Richard, Stradling, & Manstead, 1998), consumer behavior (Simonson, 1992), etc. However, there were some counterarguments to the concept that affective belief is similar to the attitude toward the behavior, and it is better to have more elaborated attitude scale to include additional affective reactions rather t han simple positive/negative affective reaction (Richard et al., 1998). The theoretical and practical implications of this alternative should be explored with in future research. Fifth, the construct of self efficacy can also be added to the TPB framewor k to examine its effectiveness on behavioral intention. Self efficacy refers the one's confidence about performing a behavior and his or her confidence in overcoming the barriers to achieve (Bandura, 1986). Ajzen (1991) suggests that self efficacy and pers onal behavioral control are synonymous. However, a number of studies found the significantly independent contribution of self efficacy within the TPB in various behavioral settings, such as alcohol use, breast cancer screening, food choice, blood donations and academic achievement (Ajzen, 2002; Armitage, Conner, Loach, & Willets, 1999; Giles, McClenaha n Cairns, & Mallet, 2004; Manstead & van Eekelen, 1998). In the results from Giles et al. (2004), self efficacy emerged as a key construct in the original T PB model, which explains 73% of the variance of blood donor behavior. However, since both self efficacy and personal behavioral control consider underlying

PAGE 58

58 control beliefs, it will require further investigation to distinguish these concepts. Otherwise, the multidimensional structure of personal behavioral control is expected. Sixth, Ajzen (1991) has argued that inclusion of moral norms in the construct of subjective norms may increase the explanatory power of the TPB model. Moral norms refers to "an indivi dual's perception of the moral correctness or incorrectness of performing a behavior" (Conner & Armitage, 1998) and take into account "personal feelings of ... responsibility to perform, or refuse to perform, a certain behavior" (Ajzen, 1991, p. 199). Beck and Ajzen (1991) examined the effectiveness of moral norms in the TPB model and there was a significant increase in the amount of variance in intention (3 to 6%). Moral norms had an independent contribution to the prediction of behavioral intentions in a variety of contexts, such as condom use (Nucifora, Gallois, & Kashima, 1993), charitable giving (Smith & McSweeney, 2007), and volunteering (Warburton & Terry, 2000). Proposed TPB's Application to Cause related Marketing This goal of this study is to test the ability of an extended TPB to predict consumers' purchase intention to cause related product. The expansion of the TPB with an attempt to add additional factors that might have an effect on behavioral intentions may provide a useful insight in underst anding how attitudes affect behavioral outcomes. Injunctive n orms As previous research has suggested the weak predictive effect of subjective norms compare to other components in the TPB model, a subjective norm needs to be conceptualized in a broadened manner to represent the concept of behavioral norms. Cialdini and colleagues (1990) examine norms as a conception of what people should do and what people actually do," (Smith & McSweeney, 2007, p. 366) rather than

PAGE 59

59 seeing norms as a unitary construction. The original subjective norm is similar to injunctive social norms w others think he or she should act, because both concepts take into consideration perceived social pressure from significant others (Smith & McSweeney, 2007). Descriptive norms other people ought to behave. Many studies have examined descriptive and injunctive norms as they apply to safe sex (White, Terry, & Hogg, 1994), drug usage (Conner & McMillan, 1999), and tobacco and alcohol usage (McMillan & Conner, 2003). Based on severa l examinations, descriptive norms and injunctive norms independently contribute to the prediction of the attitude intention relationship (Smith & McSweeney, 2007). In addition, the distinctions between injunctive norms and descriptive norms are effective a ides in understanding pro social behaviors (Smith & McSweeney, 2007; Warburton & Terry, 2000). Moral n orms Some researchers support adding a third normative factor, moral norms (personal injunctive norms), which are defined as "an individual's internalize d moral rules" (Parker, Manstead, & Stradling, 1995, p. 129). This newly added norm is a personal feeling or belief of responsibility, rather than a perceived social pressure. The role of personal or moral norms in predicting the intention behavior relatio nship is tested in several studies and suggested a distinctive and direct effect on intentions (Corner & Armitage, 1998; Smith & McSweeney, 2007). Moral norms are especially useful to predict intentions to pro social behaviors and actual behavior such as b lood donation ( Pomazel & Jaccard, 1976; Zuckerman & Reis, 1978), organ donation, (Schwartz &

PAGE 60

60 Tessler, 1972), volunteering (Warburton & Terry, 2000), and charitable giving (Smith & McSweeney, 2007). Since the willingness to give and contribute is based on p ersonal beliefs, such behavior can be classified as a moral norm. Perceived c onsumer e ffectiveness When perceived behavioral control is applied to consumer behavior, 'perceived consumer effectiveness' have been found to be significantly related to behav ioral outcome such as purchase intention and purchase behavior ( Straughan & Roberts, 1999 can easily acquire a certain product or not, which is individual's perceived resources or opportunities (Sparks & Shepherd, 1992). Even if consumer is highly motivated to buy certain product, an actual intention to purchase a product can be hindered by a low perceived effectiveness. It also is explained as a personal belief that each individ ual's effort can support a social cause and solve the problem, which is similar to a socially responsible consumption (Sparks & Shepherd, 1992). In addition, perceived corporate social responsibility is also expected to influence consumers' purchase intent ion and actual behaviors (Sparks & Shepherd, 1992; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2007). Corporate philanthropic activities, hiring practices, and treatment of employees can all affect purchase intention. Some cases, perceived consumer effectiveness refers a consumer s' willingness to act regarding to a social issue because they believe their action will help solve the problem in question, and has been examined in many studies (Berger & Corbin, 1992; Kinnear & Taylor, 1973; Nilsson, 2008; Webster, 1975). It is consume rs' imagined ability to solve a social issue or a problem (Berger & Corbin, 1992). A strong perception of consumer effectiveness motivates consumers to have positive attitudes toward

PAGE 61

61 sustainable products, environmentally friendly products, charitable givin g, blood donation, or other cause related products ( Straughan & Roberts, 1999 ). Previous research examined perceived consumer effectiveness. Kinnear and Taylor (1973) found that when consumers believe they can reduce pollution, they suggested more concern for the environment in their everyday life. Consumers with an internal locus of control who perceive greater consumer effectiveness suggest more socially responsible attitudes and behaviors (Henion, 1976). Webster (1975) also found that socially conscious consumers have stronger beliefs that they can affect social issues through intentional purchases. Although there are a number of studies that focus on the relationship between perceived consumer effectiveness and environmentally conscious behavior (Kinnea r & Taylor, 1973; Nilsson, 2008; Webster, 1975), altruistic and helping behavior (Konkoly & Perloff, 1990; Pomazel & Jaccard, 1976), and charitable giving (Smith & McSweeney, 2007), there has been little research on how perceived consumer effectiveness, wi thin the theory of planned behavior, influence s cause related marketing. Based on the previous literature, perceived consumer effectiveness is expected to be an explanatory factor of consumer behavioral intention or actual behavior as it applies to cause r elated marketing. In this context, the level of perceived consumer effectiveness reflects how much consumers think their individual pro social consumption patterns, such as purchasing a cause related product, investment in cause related marketing campaign, or volunteering will influence and change the social issue related to the product or the brand.

PAGE 62

62 Purchase intention behavioral intention alone. Intention is assumed to be "an imm ediate antecedent of behavior" (Davis & Ajzen, 2002). Behavioral intention is a summary of motivation or willingness to perform the actual behavior (Ajzen, 1988). Cause related marketing campaigns can increase the sales of a corporation by bolstering purc hase intention, product trials, repeat purchases, and product promotion of through word of mouth (Kropp et al., 1998; Brown, Barry, Dacin, & Gunst, 2005). Cause related marketing attracts customers and creates a positive attitude toward sponsorship linked products. As a result, it increases purchase intention and product consumption, and creates brand loyalty (Cornwell & Coote, 2005). Purchase intention is with the cause r elated marketing campaign (Spears & Singh, 2004, p. 56). Previous literature has explained that purchase intention in cause related marketing is influenced by cause brand fit, perceived brand motivations (Becker Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006), attitude towa rd the cause (Berger, Cunningham, & Kozinets, 1999), and more. However, the application of the TPB in this context suggests that these factors, such as fit between cause and brand, message source, and perceived motivations, may not have a direct relationsh ip to purchase intention but may directly influence consumers' attitudes toward the cause related marketing, which can positively affect their purchase intentions. In addition to the purchase intention, cause related marketing may be expected to encourage positive word of mouth behavior from consumers. Positive word store, making a positive recommendation to others about a company, extolling a

PAGE 63

63 125). Based on the foregoing discussion, the study poses the following hypotheses: H1: Consumer attitude towards purchasing a cause related product will positively relate to consumers' purchase intention to buy a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign. H2a: Consumer's injunctive norms will positively relate to consumers' purchase intention to buy a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign. H2b: Consumer's descriptive norms will positively relate to consumers' purchase intention to buy a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign. H2c: Consumer's moral norms will positively relate to consumers' purchase intention to buy a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign. H3: The consumer's perceived consumer effectiveness will positively relate to consumers' purchase intention to buy a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign. H4: Inclusion of additiona l norm variables (descriptive norms and moral norms) will explain more variance in consumers' purchase intention to buy a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign than will the original theory of planned behavior model. Cause Involvement Another important element of cause related marketing is the level of consumers' involvement toward the cause/issue (Broderick, Jogi, & Garry, 2003). Involvement refers to "a person's perceived relevance of the object based on inherent needs, values, and i nterests" (Zaichkowsky, 1985, p. 342). The concept of involvement originated in social psychology and it has been developed by many other scholars since Sherif and colleagues originated the role of ego involvement in attitude change (Sherif & Cantril 1947 ; Sherif & Hovland, 1961; Sherif Kelly, Rogers, Sarup, & Titler, 1973). Researchers have defined involvement as felt involvement (Celsi & Olsen, 1988),

PAGE 64

64 personal involvement (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979), emotional involvement (Vaughn, 1980), and response invol vement (Zimbardo, 1960). Freedman (1964) defines involvement as interest in, concern about, and commitment to a certain issue. Sherif and Hovland with an issue can affect attitude change. Involvement has been used to explain cause related marketing or associated marketing communication strategy (Chaiken, 1980; Harben, 2009; Hoeffler & Keller 2002; Kang & Herr, 2006; Petty & Cacioppo, 1996; Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman 1981 ; Schuhwerk & Lefkoff Hagius, 1995). Research on involvement has identified that a message content, message source, or message length. The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) by Petty and Cacioppo (1996) suggests two different routes to persuasion: the central and peripheral routes. Attitude change occurs through the central route when an individual carefully considers the issue relevant arguments in the message. Through the perip heral route, change in attitude occurs through peripheral cues such as the attractiveness of the message source or the length of the message. According to Petty and Cacioppo (1979), people tend to be more easily persuaded by information oriented messages a bout issues with which they are highly involved (i.e., central route attitude change). However, under low involvement conditions where message content is not heavily processed, non message cues such as images have a greater persuasive impact. Therefore, hi gh involvement conditions are more related to message content and issue relevant arguments, while low involvement conditions deal with types of appeal used in the message (Schuhwerk & Lefkoff Hagius, 1995) and likeability,

PAGE 65

65 credibility, or expertise of the source (Chaiken, 1980; Kang & Herr, 2006; Petty, et al., 1981). Interestingly, there are two reasons why issue relevant arguments are more important in attitude change under high involvement conditions. First, individuals have a greater motivation to crea te an informed opinion about an issue in which they are highly involved. If the issue has more personal consequences for them, they are highly motivated to have correct opinions about it (Harben, 2009). On the other hand, if the issue is not relevant to th e individuals, then they are not motivated to cognitively process the messages related to the issue. Second, people tend to have already established thoughts and schema about issues when people have greater relevance to the issue arguments (Harben, 2009). In the context of marketing, Petty and Cacioppo (1983) examined the moderating role of involvement regarding advertising effectiveness. In their study, they had high and low product involvement conditions with magazine advertisements that argued strongly or weakly for the products and, at the same time, suggest ed product endorsement by either celebrities or an average person. The results revealed that argument strength has a greater impact on attitude under high involvement conditions, while a celebrity en dorser has a greater effect on attitude under low involvement conditions. This support s that high or low involvement affects consumers' information processing routes. This ELM study suggests important implications for cause related marketing literature sin ce cause related marketing campaigns provide additional information for customers' behavioral and attitudinal judgments with social cause added product and messages (Harben, 2009). Therefore, understanding customers' level of involvement with the

PAGE 66

66 sponsored social cause can be a very crucial key to the success of cause related marketing campaigns effort. Cause involvement has been investigated in cause related marketing literature as a critical factor that influences consumer purchase behavior. Stipp and Schiavone (1996) suggest that consumers' favorability toward a sponsor is affected by their perceived importance of the cause. According to Broderick et al. (2003), people's level of involvement with the cause may result in the individual processing cause related marketing messages as more important and, as a result, becoming more receptive to communications from corporations. Hoeffler and Keller (2002) emphasize the importance of cause selection in developing cause related marketing campaigns, such as choo sing a cause that can resonate with customer. Drumwright (1996) also found a the perceived likelihood of the campaign's success. In cause related marketing, cause brand al liance can be perceived more favorably when campaign participants consider the cause to be more relevant to their lives (Gupta & Pirsch, 2006). Customers' involvement with the sponsored cause is positively related to attitude toward the cause brand allianc e as well as toward the campaign (Trimble & Rifon, 2006). In addition, cause involvement can be generated or increased when it is associated with certain conditions such as perceived vividness, importance, and immediacy of the cause, consumer's affinity f or the cause, or local versus global issues. Berger and colleagues (1996) argue that presenting a strong cause that is more relevant to the audience in a cause related advertisement increases consumer interest and involvement with the advertisement. This i ncreased involvement also positively

PAGE 67

67 affects attitudes toward the company. Ellen, Mohr, and Webb (2000) found that cause brand alliance is considered more favorable when it supports more immediate issues, such as disaster relief, than ongoing humanitarian causes such as increased self esteem. Barone and colleagues (2007) discovered that target customers' strong affinity toward the cause could moderate the effects of brand cause fit in the cause related marketing campaign. According to them, higher levels of brand cause fit may promote favorable evaluations of cause related marketing efforts if customers hold relatively negative or neutral attitudes toward the cause, while brand cause fit play less of a role when customers have strong affinity with the cause. In addition, consumers tend to be more involved with local or regional causes than national or international causes (Grau & Folse, 2007). For example, Smith and Alcon (1991) found that 71 percent of survey participants in their study preferred to support a charitable cause in their local area than a global issue. Based on the literature, this study will examine the effect of cause involvement on the extended model of the TPB in the context of cause related marketing. Previous literature suggests that the level of involvement with a cause affects the relationship between consumers' attitudes toward a cause related marketing campaign and their intention to participate in the campaign. There are not a sufficient number of studies examining the relationship be tween cause involvement, social norms, and perceived consumer effectiveness. However, i t is conceptually reasonable to assume that there is a relationship between consumers' involvement in a cause and p erceived consumer effectiveness, based on the common s ense belief that personal efforts can support a social cause and solve the problem. It is also reasonable to expect that social norms

PAGE 68

68 hypothetically show stronger association with behavioral intention in the TPB model under the condition of the highly invo lved cause in cause related marketing. New research streams show that it is necessary to investigate potential roles of new determinants that may explain behavioral outcomes from different perspectives in the TPB model. Based on the foregoing discussion, t he study poses the following hypothesis: H5: Exposure to an cause related marketing campaign message with high (versus low ) involvement cause will lead to more favorable (a) attitudes, (b) social norms, (c) perceived consumer effectiveness, and (d) pu rchase intention s H 6 : A cause related marketing campaign with a highly involved cause will lead to stronger associations of attitudes, social norms, and perceived consumer effectiveness with purchase intention s than a cause related marketing campaign with a low involvement cause. Summary of Hypotheses The goal of this study is to extend previously developed theories by exploring additional determinants, so this study explores the relationship between attitudes, social norms (injunctive, descriptive, and moral norms), perceived consumer effectiveness, and consumer purchase intention s within the theory of planned behavior model. In addition, this stu dy examines the effect of cause involvement on the overall relatio nship of variables in the TPB model within the context of cause related marketing. Hypotheses were derived from theoretical frameworks discussed in this chapter. Table 3 1 summarizes the hypotheses in this study. The graphical presentation of the proposed conceptual model is presented in Figure 3 1.

PAGE 69

69 Table 3 1. List of hypotheses Variables Hypotheses Attitude H1. Consumer attitude towards purchasing a cause related product will positively relate to consumers' purchase intention s to buy a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign. Norms H2a. Consumer's injunctive norms will positively relate to consumers' purchase intention s to buy a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign. H2b. Consumer's descriptive norms will positively relate to consumers' purchase intention s to buy a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign. H2c. Consumer's moral norms will positively relate to consumers' purchase intention s to buy a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign. PCE H3. The consumer's perceived consumer effectiveness will positively relate to consumers' purchase intention s to buy a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign. Extended TPB Model H4. Inclusion of additional norm variables (descriptive norms and moral norms) will explain more variance in consumers' purchase intention to buy a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign than will the original theory of planned behavior mod el. Cause Involvement H5: Exposure to an cause related marketing campaign involving high (versus low ) involvement cause will lead to more favorable (a) attitudes, (b) social norms, (c) perceived consumer effectiveness, and (d) purchase intentions. H 6 A cause related marketing campaign with a highly involved cause will lead to stronger associations of attitudes, social norms, and perceived consumer effectiveness with purchase intention s than a cause related marketing campaign with a low involvement c ause.

PAGE 70

70 Figure 3 1. Proposed Conceptual Model Purchase Intention Social Norms Injunctive Norm s Descriptive Norm s Moral Norm s Cause Involvement Perceived Consumer Effectiveness Attitude s

PAGE 71

71 CHAPTER 4 METHOD characteristics on their intentions to purchase products that support a social cause using the extended theory of planned behavior (TPB) models. This chapter describes the metho d employed for the present study, including the research design, procedure used to test the hypotheses, variables measured and operational definitions of those variables, development of questionnaires, and statistical analyses. Research Design Overview F or this study, a quasi experimental design with a single test variable was employed to investigate the relationships between cause involvement, attitudes toward purchasing a cause related product, social norms, perceived consumer effectiveness, and purchas e intentions. In this study, participants are randomly assigned to two groups and the independent variable (two levels of cause involvement: high versus low) was administered to each group. Then, both groups were post tested on the dependent variables (att itudes toward the cause related product consumption social norms, perceived consumer effectiveness, and purchase intentions). More specifically, to examine the possible effects of cause involvement on the extended TPB model in the cause related marketi ng context, prior to the main study, a survey was conducted to test the appropriateness of, and to select, the social causes. After selection of the causes, two scenarios involving the message of a cause related marketing campaign with high and low involv ement causes were developed. A pretest was conducted to check the flow and wording of the questions and to ensure the validity and reliability of measures. Then, the main study was conducted to examine the

PAGE 72

72 relationships between consumer characteristics and purchase intentions. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups (high versus low cause involvement condition) and asked to read a hypothetical scenario. Then, they were asked to answer self admin istered questionnaires, giving consideration to their attitude toward the purchase of a product tied with the cause related marketing initiative described in each scenario, the social norms to which they subscribe, perceived consumer effectiveness, and pur chase intention in the given cause related marketing condition. Measures The questionnaire in this online survey consists of scales to measure the dependent variables (attitude toward cause related marketing campaigns, injunctive norms, descriptive norms, moral norms, perceived consumer effectiveness, and purchase intention), and classification variables (i.e., previous experiences, gender, and age). Questions with response sets within each variable construct were randomized to avoid response bias. This se ction includes the operational definition of each variable, item selection, and modification. Independent Variables: Cause Involvement The single distinction between cohort groups in this study design were the two levels of cause involvement (high versus low), allowing each subject to experience only one condition. The cause involvement was identified prior to the main study to develop two hypothetical scenarios with high vs. low cause involvement a bout a product tied to a social cause. The hypothetical s cenarios built around the message of a cause related marketing campaign and present to the survey respondents

PAGE 73

73 Dependent Variables Five variables were included as dependent variables: attitude toward purchasing a cause related product, injunctive norms, descriptive norms, moral norms, perceived consumer effectiveness, and purchase intention. Attitude toward p urchasing a cause related p roduct Attitude toward purchasing a cause related product is defined as an individual's overall evaluation of purchasing a product involved in cause related marketing campaign activities (Creyer & Ross, 1992). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) suggest that attitude towar d a target behavior should be measured using semantic differential evaluations of the behavior. Thus, subjects rated their attitudes toward purchasing a product involved in cause related marketing on five 7 point semantic differential scales (Table 4 3). E ach item was measured using pairs of bipolar adjectives recommended by the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen,1975) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). These adjectives were preceded by a statement asking: "For me, to buy a product a ssociated with a cause related marketing campaign is..." Adjective pairs measured the instrumental aspect of attitude toward purchasing a cause related product, asking if they consider it valuable/worthless and harmful/beneficial. Other pairs of adjectives examined experiential (affective) quality, asking if the respondent considers purchasing a cause related product pleasant/unpleasant and enjoyable/unenjoyable. The final item captured an overall evaluation using the adjective pair good/bad. Social norms : Injunctive, descriptive, and m oral n orms In this study, three different social norms were examined including injunctive norms, descriptive norms, and moral norms. The items were originally adopted from a

PAGE 74

74 previous study conducted by Smith and McSweeney (20 07). In this study, the original measurement was revised to apply to the context of cause related marketing. To assess the extent to which subjects perceive d injunctive norms, descriptive norms, and moral norms surrounding cause related marketing, 12 items were measured along seven point scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). A summary table of the specifically worded construct items is presented in Table 4 4. Perceived consumer e ffectiveness To measure perceptions of control over purchasing a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign, this study adopted Smith and McSweeney's (2007) scale of perceived consumer effectiveness (Table 4 5). In this study, the original measurement was revised to apply the context of this study. Ther e were four items along a seven point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) (Berger & Corbin, 1992; Smith & McSweeney, 2007). Purchase i ntentions According to Ajzen (2002), three statements including "I intend to..." I will try to..." and "I plan to..." are the most appropriate to assess intentions to engage in a certain behavior. Three items were presented in the main survey to obtain a measurement of purchase intention, using a seven point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = str ongly agree). A composite of the questionnaire instrument is presented in Table 4 6. Demographics Items measuring the key classification variables by subjects were included in the measurement instrument Questions about age, gender, occupation, geography, income, education level, and previous experience with cause

PAGE 75

75 you ever purchased a product associated with a cause were asked. Sampling This study wa s conducted with a consumer panel to explore consumers' personal related marketing campaigns. This approach using a relatively homogeneous group allows for more generalizable results for a specific group (Babbie, 2007). Also, research has suggested that online panel data provide reliable results and have been used before in consumer behavior research (Straughan & Roberts, 1999). Study subject s were recruited using a national online su rvey company. The study sample was limited to consumer panels provided by a third party consumer research company, United Sample. This research company recruits its consumer panels from an online database of registered members. In this study, to ensure the quality of data, gender and geographic profiles were controlled, and duplicate and fraudulent respondents were eliminated by United Sample. Survey respondents received cash and other benefits for their survey participation such as gift cards, virtual curr ency, or donation to a charity in their name. United Sample sent an email invitation with a welcome message and a survey link. By clicking the link the survey, potential respondents were directed to the Qualtrics survey site where they first saw a welcome message and the questionnaire from the researcher. The questionnaire consisted of four sections. The first part included the informed consent form explaining the purpose of the study, the request for participation, a confidentiality agreement, and the res earchers' contact information. If they were at least 18 years old and agreed to participate, they were randomly assigned to one of two

PAGE 76

76 scenarios (high versus low cause involvement) with a message about a fictitious cause related marketing scenario. Partici pants were asked to read the scenario carefully and proceed to next section when finished reading. The third part of the questionnaire included questions about their attitudes, presented social norm statements for evaluation, and inquired about their level of perceived behavior control and their intention to purchase a cause related product. Following the question section, the fourth part of the questionnaire asked respondents to identify their age, gender, education, geography, annual household income, eth nicity, and previous experience with cause related marketing. Copies of the consent form and survey questionnaire are included in the appendix. According to Hair and colleagues (2006), the sample in each group must be greater than th e number of dependent variables while a recommended minimum cell size is 20 observations Also, a general rule of the ratio of observations to independent variables is five observations for each item of an independent variable, or 15 to 20 observ ations for each variable in th e study (Hair, et al., 2006). The larger sample size allows the F test rather than the t test for statistical analysis and it reduces the potential for a Type I error indicating that hypotheses may be incorrectly rejected (Agresti & Fi nley, 2009) Based on this rule, an effective sample size of 125 observations for each group was needed for this study. Selection of Cause Conditions Prior to conducting the main study, a short survey was conducted to gauge a perceived levels of cause involvement to apply in the editorial content for the study. Previous studies suggest when an individual is exposed to a situation within a social issue, one's involvement with the specific issue can affect attitude and behavioral

PAGE 77

77 changes (Broderick, Jogi, & Gerry, 2003; Petty & Cacioppo, 1979; Sherif & Hovland, 1961). Based on this, the present study examines the effects of cause involvement in the context of cause related marketing. In the survey, six social causes were presen ted to the respondents. Those social causes were adopted from the findings of the Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide and Georgetown University Center for Social Impact Communication (2011) study. According to this study, conducted with a nationally represen tative sample of 2,000 Americans ages 18 and older, both men and women agree that breast cancer, heart disease, and diabetes are the top high involvement health related social causes, while HIV/AIDS, prostate cancer, and child obesity are the least involve d causes. In this study, Zaichkowsky's (1994) Revised Personal Involvement Inventory (RPII) was used to measure cause involvement, consisting of 10 items with a seven point semantic differential scale. It asks subjects to indicate how important/unimportant boring/interesting, relevant/irrelevant, exciting/unexciting, means nothing/means a lot to me, appealing/unappealing, fascinating/mundane, worthless/valuable, involving/uninvolving, and not needed/needed their involvement is with a cause. Using this too l, cause involvement was measured by an online survey of U.S. consumers who are 18 and older. Survey respondents were recruited from United Sample, the consumer research company. Within the online survey platform, respondents were shown the six high and l ow involvement social causes from the Ogilvy/Georgetown University study (2011) in random order and asked to evaluate their personal level of involvement with each social cause. A total of 51 respondents completed the survey; 37.3% (n = 19) were male and 6 2.7% (n = 32) were female. The

PAGE 78

78 age of the research subject s ranged from 18 to 77, and the mean age was 38 (SD = 14.14). Regarding respondents' highest degrees, the majority of respondents (N = 38, 74.5%) had some college education or higher. Table 4 2 show s more detailed demographic information. The two social cause s selected for the main study were heart disease as the high involvement cause (M = 4.44, SD =.93) and HIV/AIDS as the low involvement cause (M = 3.77, SD = 1.38) (Table 4 1). In order to confir m the mean differences, one way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted. The result suggested that subject s' personal involvement to each social cause are statistically different from each other, F(5,300) = 3.83, p < .00. Table 4 1 Descriptive statist ics of cause involvements Social Cause Mean SD Heart Disease 4.44 .77 Breast Cancer 4.13 .75 Diabetes 4.08 .75 Child Obesity 4.06 .81 Prostate Cancer 4.00 .85 HIV/AIDS 3.77 .82 N=51 Development of Scenarios To see the effect of cause involvement on the study model, two hypothetical scenarios consisting of a message about a cause related marketing campaign were presented. Based on the results from the preliminary survey to identify a relatable level of cause i nvolvement, two scenarios were developed to describe a situation in which a hypothetical company is supporting a high (heart disease) or low (HIV/AIDS) involvement social cause through cause related marketing. The researcher chose to

PAGE 79

79 use a fictitious bra nd, R Plus, to eliminate any confounding variables, such as brand awareness, brand familiarity, or brand favoritism that might affect the study design. In the survey, one of these two scenarios were randomly presented to respondents to see if any differe nces between attitudinal and behavioral intentions toward a cause related marketing campaign based on cause involvement would arise. The scenario is adopted from Cui, Trent, Sullivan, and Matiru's (2003) cause related marketing study. The cause related mar keting message used in this study follows: In the p a st five years, R Plus has donated 5 percent of every purchase made by its customers during the month of July to United Cares, a non profit organization that supports heart care & heart disease (as a high involved cause, HIV/AIDS as a low involved cause) and related medical research This money is used primarily for preventing disease and diminishing suffering from it through research, patient education, and early detection. This July, we will continue to support this vital cause by donating 5 percent of every purchase made by customers. All donated money will be used for research and public education for prevention of this disease in our community. Help us help others with your next purchase. Together, we can make a difference! Pilot Study A pilot study was carried out before the main test was conducted. A pilot study refers to a preliminary study that runs the entire research procedure with a small group (Babbie, 2007). According to Babbie (2007), "the s urest protection against error is to pretest the questionnaire in full or in part." Therefore, this pilot study also helps the researcher to determine how a questionnaire can be improved to minimize response errors while identifying potential problems such as ambiguous questions, terminology issue, and missing technical components in the online survey platform (Babbie, 2007; self administered questionnaires, because int erviewers will not be available to clarify

PAGE 80

80 243). In addition, pilot study helps the researcher ensure the reliability of measures (Babbie, 2007). In this study, the pilot study was conducted with all items to measure all variables that will be used in main study later (cause involvement, attitudes, injunctive norms, descriptive norms, moral norms, perceived consumer effectiveness, and purchase intention). Sampling and Sample Profile The pilot study was launched using the Qualtrics software program and disseminated among consumer panels age 18 or older in the United States recruited from United Sample's consumer panelists. Because the main study would use subjects from the same consumer panels, the us e of a demographically similar group seemed appropriate. Research subjects were randomly assigned to one of each scenario that explained the cause related marketing effort supporting either high (heart disease) or low involvement cause (HIV/AIDS). At the end of the online survey respondents were asked to write their personal feedback about the survey questionnaire and scenario in terms of flow, orientation, terminology issues, etc. Among the total 117 respondents, about half (n = 55, 47%) were exposed to a message about the high involvement cause, while the other half (n = 62, 53%) were exposed to a low involvement cause. The age of the research subjects for the pretest ranged from 1 8 to 77, and the mean age was 37.5 (SD = 14.14). The gender breakdown was quite even: 50.4% were males (n = 59) and 29.6% were females (n = 58). Table 4 7 shows the demographic data for this pilot study. Reliability Check In order to assess the reliabilit y of measures, Cronbach's alpha test was conducted. Cronbach's alpha is the most widely used evaluation of the degree of

PAGE 81

81 consistency of scales used (Hair et al., 2006). Table 4 8 shows the reliability results for six variables. According to Langdridge's (2 004) criteria, a Cronbach's alpha above .70 is acceptable alpha score. As Cortina (1993) explained: If a test has a large alpha, then it can be concluded that a large portion of the variance in the test is attributable to general and group factors. This i s important information because it implies that there is very little item specific variance. (p. 103) All Cronbach's alpha values were more than .80, except for injunctive norm (.61) and descriptive norm ( .16). Upon confirming the internal consistency of the scale, non representative items from both variables were excluded from further analysis. The excluded items from both variables were: "Think of the people in your life whose opinions you value. What percentage of them do you think would disapprove of y our purchasing a product that sponsors a cause (1= 0%, 7= 100%)?" from injunctive norms and "Think of people who are important to you. What percentage of them do you think would purchase a cause supporting product (1= 0%, 7= 100%)?" from descriptive norms. After the items were removed, as indicated in Table 4 values were more than .80. Therefore, all variables were considered highly consistent and reliable items to use to measure the same construct (Hair et al., 2006). In particula r, result, the researcher was able to modify any potential errors in the instrument before administering it to a larger sample. Main Study The goal of this study was to id entify characteristics that encourage consumers effects on consumer attitudes and purchase intention using the Theory of Planned

PAGE 82

82 Behavior The research subjects were recruited from consumer panels from United Sample. The individuals were randomly assigned to one of two cohort groups by the Qualtrics software program to increase internal validity of the study. With this random assignment, the researcher assumes th at both g roups are equivalent (Aronson et al., 1990). Validity is "the extent to which a scale or set of measures accurately represents the concept of interest" (Hair et al., 2006, p. 137). The face validity was established prior to the testing by conduct ing a pilot test with consumers from consumer panelists. Also, it has been tested by some of consumer research experts, including doctoral students and university professors in mass communications or related fields. To heighten internal validity, all respo ndents were randomly assigned to two groups since this randomization provides for higher internal validity (Aronson et al., 1990).

PAGE 83

83 Table 4 2 Sample demographic profiles ( Pilot study) Total Demographics N % Gender Male 19 37.3 Female 32 62.7 Age 18 19 years 2 3.9 20 29 years 16 31.4 30 39 years 6 11.8 40 49 years 11 21.6 50 59 years 8 15.7 60 69 years 7 13.7 70 and older 1 2.0 Ethnicity Asian 8 15.7 Black/African American 4 7.8 Hispanic/Latino 2 3.9 Native American 2 3.9 White/Caucasian 35 68.7 Education Less than High School 4 7.8 High School/GED 9 17.6 Some College 15 29.4 2 Year College Degree (Associates) 6 11.8 4 Year College Degree (BA/BS) 11 21.6 Master's Degree 5 9.8 Doctoral Degree 1 2.0 Income $0 $19,999 4 7.8 $20,000 $39,999 17 33.3 $40,000 $59,999 11 21.6 $60,000 $79,999 5 9.8 $80,000 $99,999 3 5.9 $100,000 $119,999 3 5.9 $120,000 or above 8 15.7 Total 51 100.0

PAGE 84

84 Table 4 3 Attitude s measurement items Variable Measurement Items (Ajzen, 1991) For me, to buy a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign is..." Attitudes 1. Worthless/Valuable 2. Harmful/Beneficial 3. Unpleasant/Pleasant 4. Unenjoyable/Enjoyable 5. Bad/Good Table 4 4 Social norms measurement items Variable Measurement Items (Smith & McSweeney, 2007) Injunctive Norms 1. The people closest to me would support me in purchasing a product that sponsors a social cause. 2. The people closest to me would disapprove if I purchased a product that sponsors a social cause. 3. Most people who are important to me think that I would buy a cause linked product. 4. The people who are important to me approve of my purchasing a cause supporting product. 5. The people close to me approve my purchase if I were to purchase a cause supporting product. Descriptive Norms 1. Most people who are important to me would purchase a product that supports a social cause. 2. The people closest to me would not purchase product that supports a social cause. 3. How likely do you think it is that people who are important to you purchase cause linked products? Moral Norms 1. I am the kind of person who would purchase a cause supporting product. 2. a product that supports a social cause. 3. I believe I have a moral obligation to purchase products that supports social causes 4. N ot purchasing a social cause supporting product goes against my principles.

PAGE 85

85 Table 4 5 Perceived c onsumer e ffectiveness m easurement i tems Variable Measurement Items (Smith & McSweeney, 2007) Perceived Consumer Effectiveness 1. If I wanted to, I could easily purchase a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign. 2. It would be mostly up to me whether I purchase a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign or not. 3. Purchasing a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign would be easy for me to do. 4. Overall, how much control would you have over purchasing a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign? (1 = no control, 7= complete control). Table 4 6 Purchase intentions measurement items Variable Measurement Items (Ajzen, 2002) Purchase Intentions 1. I intend to buy a product from a company or brand that supports a social cause. 2. I will try to buy a product from a company or brand that supports a social cause. 3. I plan to a product from a company or brand that supports a social cause.

PAGE 86

86 Table 4 7 Sample demographic profiles from p ilot study Demographics Low Involvement High Involvement N % N % Gender Male 28 47.5 31 50.0 Female 27 52.5 31 50.0 Age 18 19 years 5 9.1 3 4.8 20 29 years 11 20.0 24 38.7 30 39 years 14 25.5 12 19.4 40 49 years 5 9.1 12 19.4 50 59 years 13 23.6 9 14.5 60 69 years 6 10.9 2 3.2 70 and older 1 1.8 0 0.0 Ethnicity Asian 3 5.5 5 8.1 Black/African American 7 12.7 11 17.7 Hispanic/Latino 4 7.3 10 16.1 Native American 0 0.0 2 3.2 White/Caucasian 41 74.5 34 54.8 Education Less than High School 1 1.8 1 1.6 High School/GED 20 36.4 13 21.0 Some College 13 23.6 17 27.4 2 Year College Degree (Associates) 6 10.9 7 11.3 4 Year College Degree (BA/BS) 11 20.0 17 27.4 Master's Degree 4 7.3 4 6.5 Doctoral Degree 0 0.0 2 3.2 Others 0 0.0 1 1.6 Income $0 $19,999 7 12.7 9 14.5 $20,000 $39,999 16 29.1 12 19.4 $40,000 $59,999 16 29.1 10 16.1 $60,000 $79,999 8 14.5 11 17.7 $80,000 $99,999 4 7.3 12 19.4 $100,000 $119,999 2 3.6 4 6.5 $120,000 or above 2 3.6 4 6.5 Total 55 100.0 62 100.0

PAGE 87

87 Table 4 8 Means and standard deviations from pilot study Cause Involvement N Mean SD Attitudes High 55 5.79 1.26 Low 62 4.82 1.44 Injunctive Norms High 55 3.63 .82 Low 62 3.16 .91 Descriptive Norms High 55 4.04 .62 Low 62 3.80 .52 Moral Norms High 55 4.65 1.14 Low 62 4.08 1.24 Perceived Consumer Effectiveness High 55 5.72 1.03 Low 62 5.21 1.10 Purchase Intentions High 55 5.18 1.38 Low 62 4.58 1.06 N=117 Table 4 9 Results of one way ANOVA for cause involvement Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Attitudes 27.614 (1, 115) 1.852 14.91 .00 *** Injunctive Norms 6.671 (1, 115) .761 8.77 .00 *** Descriptive Norms 1.651 (1, 115) .322 5.13 .03 Moral Norms 9.315 (1, 115) 1.421 6.55 .01 ** Perceived Consumer Effectiveness 7.417 (1, 115) 1.143 6.49 .01 ** Purchase Intentions 10.725 (1, 115) 1.490 7.20 .01 ** N=117 Table 4 10 Reliability check Number of items Cronbach's alpha Attitudes 5 .96 Injunctive Norms 5 .85 Descriptive Norms 3 .83 Moral Norms 4 .86 Perceived Consumer Effectiveness 4 .88 Purchase Intentions 3 .96

PAGE 88

88 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS This chapter presents the results of the hypotheses testing and the answers to the research questions. Data analyses were performed using various statistical techniques such as descriptive statistics, one way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests, multiple re gression analyses, hierarchical multiple regression analyses, and the Chow test. Variance Influence Factor (VIF) was used to check to see if multicollinearity exists among the independent variables. The procedures and results of statistical analyses are pr esented. Description of Sample A total of 780 responses were received, and 612 respondents completed the online survey appropriately. Of the remaining 168, some declined to participated in the current study, some did not completed the surve y some answered the questionnaires without thought (e.g., choosing certain number for every response), and others were not older than 18 years old. Table 5 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the sample characteristics. Among the 612 respondents who com pleted the survey, 324 (52.9%) were female and 288 (47.1%) were male. The median age for research subjects across all groups was 41 years old, with the youngest at 19 and the oldest at 81 years old. The majority of subjects were between 20 and 59 (N = 491, 78.9%) years old. Most of the subjects were White and Caucasian (N = 447, 71.9%). Of the total respondents, 451 (73.7%) had some higher education or a college degree. The majority of the subjects' annual household incomes were between $20,000 and $79,000 (N = 383, 62.6%). Regarding the respondents' state of legal residence, 125 (20.4%) were from the Northeast (New England and Middle Atlantic), 131 (21.4%) from the Midwest (East

PAGE 89

89 North Central and West North Central), 240 (39.2%) from the South (South Atla ntic, East South Central, and West South Central), and 105 (17.2%) from the West (Mountain and Pacific), based on the U.S. Census Region and Divisions of the United States (2012). More detailed information is illustrated on Table 5 1. The majority of subj ects (N = 449, 73.4%) had an experience purchasing a cause related product. Among consumers who had such an experience, 265 (59%) purchased less than 5 times in 2011, while others had purchased cause related products more than 6 times in 2011. Most of resp ondents (N = 393, 87.5%) answered that they purchased cause related product at least once a month on average. Level of Cause Involvement Respondents were randomly assigned to scenarios that describe d cause related marketing campaign supporting either high involvement (hear t disease) cause or low involvement cause (HIV/AIDS). Among the total of 612 respondents, about half of respondents (N = 309, 50.5%) were exp osed to a message with a high involve ment cause, while the other half (N = 303, 49.5%) were exposed to a cause related marketing scenario with a low involve ment cause. Table 5 2 presents the results of the one way ANOVA used to check the effectiveness of each scenario (high involvement cause vs. low involvement cause) in each of dependent variables. The results indicated that the mean differences for attitude toward the cause related product consumption (MHigh = 5.75, SD = 1.26 vs. MLow = 5.45, SD = 1.38, F(1, 620) = 7.731, p = .01) and purchase i ntentions (MHigh = 5.00, SD = 1.30 vs. MLow = 4.74, SD = 1.50, F(1, 620) = 5.125, p = .02) between the two groups was significant at the 95% confidence level.

PAGE 90

90 Confounding Check To see whether other confounding factors results in different personal outcome toward the cause related marketing in this study model a one way ANOVA was performed According to the previous literature the influence of past behavior on the behavioral intention or current behavior was considered in the TPB model (Ajzen, 1991; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Mullen, Hersey, & Iverson, 1987). In this study, previous experience with cause related marketing campaign was concerned as confounding variable in the proposed model. Table 5 3 demonstrates the result of one way ANOVA that found no sign ificant differences between people who had a prior experience and people who do not have any prior experience in attitudes toward the cause marketing product consumption F(1, 610) = .842, p > .05, injunctive norms F(1, 610) = .605, p > .05, descriptive nor ms F(1, 610) = .648, p > .05, moral norms F (1, 610) = .168, p > .05, perceived consumer effectiveness F(1, 610) = .050, p > .05. and purchase intention F(1, 610) = .054, p > .05. Reliability Check Scale reliability tests were examined for each dependent variables. Internal is greater than .5 are acceptable (Gliem & Gliem, 2004). Reliability for all scales was greater than .70, and consistent with pilot studies details of whi ch are found in Table 5 4 through 5 7. With the closer to 1.0 alpha, the scale is expected to have the higher internal consistency; thus the scales that were used in this study were highly reliable. Descriptive Statistics Before testing the hypotheses, s cale reliability tests and descriptive statistics were performed to see means and standard deviations of measurement variables of

PAGE 91

91 attitudes, social norms, perceived consumer effectiveness, and purchase intentions in the context of cause related marketing. Attitude toward Cause related Product Consumption Table 5 4 shows means and standard deviations for measures of attitude toward cause M = 5.60, SD = 1.33). Of the five items, respondents agreed with: purchasing a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign is valuable ( M = 5.73, SD = 1.52), good ( M = 5.68, SD = 1.53), enjoyable ( M = 5.56, SD = 1.49), beneficial ( M = 5.54, SD = 1.41), and pleasant ( M = 5.49, SD = 1.39). Especially, those of who were assigned to a high involved cause group showed more positive attitude toward cause related product consumption: valuable (M High = 5.79, SD = 1.51 vs. M Low = 5.56, SD = 1.53), beneficial (M High = 5.96, SD = 1.52 vs. M Lo w = 5.67, SD = 1.49), pleasant (M High = 5.63, SD = 1.49 vs. M Low = 5.42, SD = 1.49), enjoyable (M High = 5.59, SD = 1.53 vs. M Low = 5.18, SD = 1.55), and good (M High = 5.78, SD = 1.50 vs. M Low = 5.67, SD = 1.49). Social Norms Table 5 5 shows means and standard deviations for measures of social norms in the context of cause related marketing. Of the three social norms (injunctive norms, descriptive norms, and moral norms), respondents perceived the moral norms (M = 4.06, SD = 1.44) most positively. Most of responses were evaluated at the neutral to negative level for both injunctive norms (M = 2.74, SD = 1.20) and descriptive norms (M = 3.04, SD = 1.16). Of the 12 items about social norms, respondents perceived the ind of person who would purchase a cause

PAGE 92

92 most with the item stating, "The people closest to me would disapprove if I purchased a product that sponsors a social cause." (M = 2.65 important to me approve of my purchasing a cause = 1.47) from injunctive norms. Perceived Consumer Effectiveness Table 5 6 shows means and standard deviations for measures of perceive d consumer effective in the context of cause perceived consumer effectiveness as positive (M = 5.72, SD = 1.10). Of the 4 items about perceived consumers effectiveness, respondents perceived that each individual has much control over purchasing a product associated with a cause (M = 6.14, SD = 1.26). Purchase Intention s Table 5 7 shows means and standard deviations for measures of purchase reported neutral to positive purchase intentions (M = 4.88, SD = 1.41). Of the 3 items, respondents marked the following item highest: "I will try to buy a product from a company or brand respondents were assigned to a hi gh involved cause group showed more positive intention to purchase a cause related product (M High = 5.00, SD = 1.30 vs. M Low = 4.75, SD = 1.50). Hypotheses Testing This study incorporated three broad hypotheses testing ea ch variables in the extended TPB model, comparing the original TPB model and the extended TPB model that is proposed by this study, and the effectiveness of cause involvement in the cause

PAGE 93

93 related marketing with the extended TPB model. Following are listed the hypotheses in this study. Correlation Analysis Prior to the main analysis, a correlation analysis of variables was conducted. Table 5 8 shows Pearson correlation coefficients for the dependent variables. The correlation analysis showed all of measured variables are significantly correlated (p = .000) Injunctive norms and descriptive norms are negatively correlated with attitudes, perceived consumer effectiveness, and purchase intentions. H1. Effects of Attitude toward Cause Related Product Consumpt ion Hypothesis 1 predicted that consumers' attitude toward cause related product consumption would be positively related to their purchase intention. Regression analysis was conducted to test the linear association between attitude toward cause related p roduct consumption and purchase intentions. A ttitudes had a significant relationship with consumers' intentions to purchase a cause related product (see Table 5 10 and Table 5 11) This result describes that there is a significant relationship with a high involvement cause related product purchase intentions [ F (1, 307) = 123.207, t = 11.10, p < .001] and a low involvement cause related product purchase intentions [ F (1, 301) = 87.155, t = 9.34, p < .001]. The regression model explained 26% of the total variance in purchase intentions. This result showed that, the more respondents have a positive attitude toward cause related product consumption, the greater the intention to purchase a cause related product. In terms of cause involvement, 29% of the variability of purchase intentions was explained by the attitude toward the high involvement cause related product consumption, while 23% of the variability of purchase intentions was explained by the

PAGE 94

94 attitudes to ward the low involvement cause related product consumption. Based on this result, Hypothesis 1 was supported. H2. Effects of Social Norms Hypothesis 2 predicted that purchase intentions are positively affected by social norms: injunctive norms (H2a), descriptive norms (H2b), and moral norms (H2c). Series of simple regression analysis were conducted to test the linear association between each social norm variable and purchase intentions. H2a. Injunctive norms As shown in Table 5 12 and Table 5 13 injunctive norms had a significant relationship with consumers' intentions to pu rchase a cause related product I njunctive norms had a significant relationships with consumers' intentions to purchase a high involvement cause related product [ F (1, 307) = 107.488, t = 10.37, p < .001] and a low involvement cause related product as well [ F (1, 301) = 90.018, t = 9.49, p < .001]. However, the result r evealed that injunctive norms are negatively related to overall purchase intentions ( = .49 for the total, = .51 for the high involvement, = .48 for the low involvement, p < .001) The suggested model with the high involvement cause explained 26% o f the variance in the purchase intentions, while the model with the low involvement cause explained 23% of the variance in the purchase intentions. Based on this result, Hypothesis 2a that predicted a positive relationship between injunctive norms and purc hase intentions was not supported. H2b. Descriptive n orms As the results in Table 5 1 4 and Table 5 15 descriptive norms had a significant relationships with consumers' intentions to purchase a high involvement cause related product [ F (1, 307) = 121.127, t = 11.01, p < .001] and a low involvement cause related

PAGE 95

95 product as well [ F (1, 301) = 183.352, t = 13.54, p < .001]. However, there was a negative relationship between descriptive norms and purchase intentions. Consumers with strong descriptive norms tend to be less likely to purchase a cause related product. With this variable, the result revealed that the suggested model with the low involvement cause explained 38% of the variance in the purchase intentions, while the model with the high involvement cause explained 28% of the variance in the purchase intentions. Based on this result, Hypothesis 2b predicted a positive relationship between descriptive norms and purchase intentions was not supported. H2c. Moral n orms Hypothesis 2c predicted a positive relationship with moral norms and purchase intentions for both groups (Table 5 1 6 and Table 5 1 7 ) The result showed that m oral norms significantly affect consumers' purchase intentions. There was a positive relati onship between moral norms and purchase intentions. M oral norm had a significant relationships with consumers' intentions to purchase a high involvement cause related product [ F (1, 307) = 237.117, t = 15.40, p < .001] and a low involvement cause related pr oduct as well [ F (1, 301) = 272.268, t = 16.50, p < .001]. Consumers with strong moral norms tend to be more likely to purchase a cause related product. Thus, Hypothesis 2c was supported. H3. Effects of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness Hypothesis 3 predi cted a positive relationship between perceived consumer effectiveness and purchase intentions in the cause related marketing context. A simple regression analysis was applied to find any relationship. As depicted in Table 5 1 8 and Table 5 1 9 there is a positive relations hips between the two variables for both groups. Perceived consumer effectiveness explained 36% of the variance for the high

PAGE 96

96 involvement cause [ F (1, 307) = 46.611, p < .001], while the regression model explained 41% of the total variance i n purchase intentions for the low involvement cause related product [ F (1, 301) = 60.111, p < .05]. This result demonstrated that the more respondents believe they have an ability to contribute in changing the world to a better one, the more intention they have to purchase a product that support a social cause; thus Hypothesis 3 was supported. H4. The Comparison between the original TPB model vs. the extended TPB model: Inclusion of additional norm variables Hypothesis 4 predicted that inclusion of additi onal norm variables (descriptive norms and moral norms) to an original norm construct (injunctive norm) in the TPB model would explain more variance in consumers' purchase intentions in buying a cause related product. First, the series of stepwise multiple regression analysis were conducted to examine the original TPB model to see contributions of each independent variables (attitudes, injunctive norms, and perceived consumer effectiveness) to dependent variables (purchase intentions). According to Hair, et al. (2006), the stepwise estimation with regression analysis is "a method of selecting variables for inclusion in the regression model that starts by selecting the best predictor of the dependent variable. (p. 175)." As shown in the Table 5 20 and Table 5 2 1 the stepwise procedure highlighted the importance of all three dependent variable in assessing overall model and showed that the relative impact of each variable included in the regression. The model with the high involvement cause showed that attitu des were the most predictable factor of dependent variables while 54% of the variability of purchase intentions were explained by attitude only [ F (1, 307) = 123.207, p < .05]. Additional variables (injunctive norms

PAGE 97

97 and perceived consumer effectiveness) wer e added to reach the final model, and these variables added more contributions. 60% of the variability of purchase intentions were explained by attitudes and injunctive norms [ F (1, 307) = 87.137, p < .05], and 62% of the variability of purchase intentions were explained by the full model with attitudes, injunctive norms, and perceived consumer effectiveness [ F (1, 307) = 65.938, p < .05]. The model with the low involvement cause showed that injunctive norms were the most predictable factor of dependent vari ables while 48% of the variance in purchase intentions [ F (1, 301) = 90.018, p < .05]. Additional variables (attitudes and perceived consumer effectiveness) were added to reach the final model, and these variables added more contributions to the model. 56% of the variability of purchase intentions were explained by adding attitudes [ F (1, 307) = 87.137, p < .05], and 62% of the variability of purchase intentions were explained by adding perceived consumer effectiveness [ F (1, 307) = 65.938, p < .05]. But, for both cases, the results of stepwise multiple regression analyses revealed injunctive norms were negatively related to overall purchase intentions in the regression model for the high involvement cause ( = .28, p < .001) and for the low involvement cause ( = .29, p < .001), indicating that the respondents with lower injunctive norms were expected to have higher purchase intentions when they buying a high involvement cause related product. From this analysis, this study found that the original TPB model i s applicable in the cause related marketing context, while injunctive norms were negatively affecting the intentions. Next, in order to explain the more variance in consumers' purchase intention to buy a product associated with a cause related marketing c ampaign by adding two

PAGE 98

98 variables (descriptive norms and moral norms) to the original TPB model, the hierarchical multiple regression analysis were conducted (Table 5 19 to Table 5 21 ). As shown in the tables, by adding additional variables, 17% more of the variance in purchase intentions to buy a high involvement cause related product [ F (1, 301) = 90.018, p < .05] and 26% more of the variance in purchase intentions to buy a low involvement cause related product [ F (1, 301) = 90.018, p < .05] were explained by the extended TPB model. This result shows that additional social norms variables added more contributions to the final model. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was supported. In this extended TPB model that can be apply to the cause related marketing campaign, moral norms ( =.45 for the high involvement cause and =.49 for the low involvement cause, p < .001) were the most explanatory construct for explaining consumer's purchase intentions in buying a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign. The results revealed that both injunctive norms and descriptive norms were negatively related to overall purchase intentions in the regression model for the high .14, p < .001 and descriptive norms: = .10, p < .001) and for the low involvement cause (injunctive norms: = .08, p < .05 and descriptive norms: = .22, p < .001), indicating that the respondents with lower injunctive norms and descriptive norms were expected to have higher purchase intentions when they buying a high involvement cause related product. This analysis found that the extended TPB model with additional variables is applicable in the cause related marketing context, while injunctive norms and descriptive norms were negatively affecting th e purchase intentions.

PAGE 99

99 According to Hair et al. (2006), in order to identify multicollinearity in regression analysis, there are several indicators such as correlation matrix, tolerance, and the variance inflation factor (CIF). As shown in Table 5 8, ther e was no presence of high correlations (generally .90 and higher). Second, to assess multicollinearity more precisely, tolerance check and VIF check has been done. As a direct measure of multicollinearity, tolerance is defined as "the amount of variability of the selected independent variable not explained by the other independent variables" (Hair, et al., 2006, p. 227). Small tolerance values (below .01) denote high collinearity. Based on the result, there was no multicollinearity among the variables wit h tolerance which range s from .437 to .788. A third measure of multicollinearity is VIF, which is simply an inverse of the tolerance value (for example, if tolerance is .80, the VIF would be 1.25) According to Hair, et al. (2006), a common cutoff threshol d of VIF value is 10. If the VIF value is greater than 10, there is a high degree of multicollinearity. As Table 5 22 and Table 5 23 shown, t here w as no multicollinearity among the variables included to the model with VIF from 1.270 to 2.475 H5 & H6 Effects of Cause Involvement Hypothesis 5 suggested that exposure to an cause related marketing campaign message with a high involvement cause would be more likely to lead to (a) positive attitudes toward consumptions of the product with cause related mark eting campaign; (b) positive social norms (injunctive, descriptive, and moral norms); (c) positive perceived consumer effectiveness; and (d) positive purchase intentions. A one way ANOVA test were tested where the independent variable was cause involvemen t (high versus low) and the dependent variables were attitudes, social norms, perceived consumer effectiveness, and purchase intentions. As shown in Table 5 2 4

PAGE 100

100 the cause involvement had sig nificant effects on attitudes ( F (1, 611) = 7.731, p < .05 ) and purchase intentions ( F (1, 611) = 5.125, p < .05) There were no significant differences in the effects of cause involvement on injunctive norms ( F (1, 611) = .344, p = .56), descriptive norms ( F (1, 611) = .148, p = .70), moral norms ( F (1, 611) = 1.472, p = .26 ), and perceived consumer effectiveness ( F (1, 611) = ..025 p = 87 ). Thus, H 5(a) and (d) were supported but H1( b ) and H1( c ) were not supported. Hypothesis 6 predicated that different relationships would be observed in the extended TPB model when it is applied to high vs. low involvement cause in the cause related marketing. According to Chow (1960), when a linear regression is used to represent a relationship for two different groups, "there is not enough rationale in assuming that two relationships ar e completely the same (p. 591)". The Chow test (Doran, 1989) can be applied to examine the equality of regression coefficients across two or more sets. Therefore Chow test has been examined in this study to see any different relationships of the extended T PB model in high vs. low involvement cause groups. According to Doran (1989), the null hypothesis of the Chow test is that there is no difference of regression model including between two groups with the normality assumption. The Chow test statistics is: Sc: The sum of squared residuals from the combined data S1: The sum of squared residuals from the first group S2: The sum of squared residuals from the second group N1 and N2: The number of observations in each group k : The total number of parameters

PAGE 101

101 Table 5 2 4 shows the ANOVA results of multiple regression. From the Table 5 2 4 the F ratio (Chow test) is: Chow test's F = 2.345 > Critical F (5, 606, p < .05) = 2.229 The F statistics shows that the test is significant. The Chow test confirmed that these two regression models (the high vs. low involvement cause model) in the cause related marketing context were statistically different each other. In other words, there are two subsets with different intercepts and slopes when the model is tested for two regression models Based on the result, independent variables in this extended TPB model (attitudes, injunctive norms, descriptive norms, moral norms, and perceived consumer effectiveness) have different impacts on dependent variable (purchase intentions) for each of two s ubgroups (high vs. low involvement groups) of the population. Therefore, H 6 was supported. Figure 5 1 and 5 2 show the result of hypotheses testing in this study.

PAGE 102

102 Table 5 1. Sample demographic profile High Involvement Low Involvement Demographics N % N % Gender Female 145 46.9 160 47.2 Male 164 53.1 160 52.8 Age 18 19 years 13 4.2 18 5.9 20 29 years 85 27.5 67 22.1 30 39 years 57 18.4 70 23.1 40 49 years 53 17.2 47 15.5 50 59 years 53 17.2 54 17.8 60 69 years 37 12.0 37 12.2 70 and older 11 3.6 10 3.3 Ethnicity Arabic 0 .0 1 .3 Asian 14 4.5 12 4.0 Black/African American 49 15.9 39 12.9 Hispanic/Latino 29 9.4 17 5.6 Native American 3 .0 1 .3 White/Caucasian 214 69.3 233 76.9 Education Less than High School 7 2.3 11 3.6 High School/GED 74 23.9 69 22.8 Some College 86 27.8 72 23.8 2 Year College Degree (Associates) 35 11.3 36 11.9 4 Year College Degree (BA/BS) 74 23.9 76 25.1 Master's Degree 24 7.8 34 11.2 Doctoral Degree 9 2.9 5 1.7 Income $0 $19,999 54 17.5 37 12.2 $20,000 $39,999 86 27.8 75 24.8 $40,000 $59,999 68 22.0 66 21.8 $60,000 $79,999 34 11.0 54 17.8 $80,000 $99,999 32 10.4 28 9.2 $100,000 $119,999 17 5.5 17 5.6 $120,000 or above 18 5.8 26 8.6 Total 3.9 100.0 303 100.0

PAGE 103

103 Table 5 1. Continued High Involvement Low Involvement Region N % N % Northeast Overall 67 21.7 58 19.1 1. New England (Connecticut, Main, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,& Vermont) 18 5.8 7 2.3 2. Middle Atlantic (New Jersey, New York, & Pennsylvania) 49 15.9 51 16.8 Midwest Overall 68 22.0 63 20.8 3. East North Central (Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, & Wisconsin) 48 15.5 47 15.5 4. West North Central (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, & South Dakota) 21 6.8 17 5.6 South Overall 122 39.5 117 38.6 5. South Atlantic (Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, & West Virginia) 73 23.6 80 26.4 6. East South Central (Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, & Tennessee) 20 6.5 20 6.6 7. West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, & Texas) 28 9.1 17 5.6 West Overall 49 15.9 56 18.5 8. Mountain (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, & Wyoming) 16 5.2 20 6.6 9. Pacific (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, & Washington) 33 10.7 36 11.9 Unidentified 3 1.0 8 2.6 Total 309 100.0 303 100.0

PAGE 104

104 Table 5 1 Continued High Involvement Low Involvement N % N % Previous purchase experience Yes 234 75.7 215 71.0 No 75 24.3 88 29.0 Total 309 100.0 303 100.0 Purchase times in 2011 1 5 times 136 58.1 129 60.0 6 10 times 52 22.2 50 23.3 11 15 times 30 12.8 20 9.3 16 20 times 2 .9 6 2.8 21 or more times 14 6.0 10 4.7 Total 234 100.0 215 100.0 Average purchase times in a month Never 25 10.7 31 14.4 Once in a month 153 65.4 140 65.1 About 2 5 times 44 18.8 38 17.7 About 6 10 times 10 4.3 4 1.9 More than 10 times 2 .9 2 .9 Total 234 100.0 215 100.0 Table 5 2 Result of one way ANOVA for cause involvement Variables High (n=309) Low (n = 303) F Sig. M M SD Attitudes 5.45 1.38 7.731 .01* Injunctive Norms 2.71 1.22 .344 .56 Descriptive Norms 3.02 1.17 .148 .70 Moral Norms 3.99 1.47 1.472 .26 Perceive Consumer Effectiveness 5.83 .99 .025 .87 Purchase Intentions 4.74 1.50 5.125 .02* Note: All items were measured on a 7 point scale, N = 612, p<.05

PAGE 105

105 Table 5 3 Result of one way ANOVA for purchase experience Variables Experienced (n = 449) No Experience (n = 163) F Sig. M SD M SD Attitudes 5.57 1.34 5.68 1.29 .842 .36 Injunctive Norms 2.71 1.19 2.79 1.20 .605 .43 Descriptive Norms 3.02 1.19 3.10 1.10 .648 .42 Moral Norms 4.07 1.45 4.02 1.39 .168 .68 Perceive Consumer Effectiveness 5.83 .96 5.84 .90 .050 .82 Purchase Intentions 4.88 1.43 4.85 1.36 .054 .82 Note: All items were measured on a 7 point scale, N = 612, p<.05 Table 5 4. Means and standard deviations for measures of attitudes Attitude toward the CRM High Low M SD M SD Overall ( 5.75 1.26 5.45 1.38 Worthless/Valuable 5.79 1.51 5.56 1.53 Harmful/Beneficial 5.96 1.52 5.67 1.49 Unpleasant/Pleasant 5.63 1.49 5.42 1.49 Unenjoyable/Enjoyable 5.59 1.53 5.18 1.55 Bad/Good 5.78 1.50 5.67 1.49

PAGE 106

106 Table 5 5. Means and standard deviations for measures of social norms Social Norms High Low M SD M SD Overall 3.32 .65 3.24 .66 Injunctive Norms Overall ( 2.76 1.17 2.71 1.23 The people closest to me would support me in purchasing a product that sponsors a social cause. 2.68 1.39 2.66 1.52 The people closest to me would disapprove if I purchased a product that sponsors a social cause. [R] 2.74 1.77 2.54 1.68 Most people who are important to me think that I would buy a cause linked product. 3.10 1.55 3.11 1.55 The people who are important to me approve of my purchasing a cause supporting product. 2.66 1.40 2.60 1.40 The people close to me approve my purchase if I were to purchase a cause supporting product. 2.64 1.44 2.63 1.46 Descriptive Norms Overall ( 3.06 1.16 3.02 1.17 Most people who are important to me would purchase a product that supports a social cause. 2.92 1.38 2.85 1.41 The people closest to me would not purchase product that supports a social cause. [R] 3.06 1.66 3.04 1.61 How likely do you think it is that people who are important to you purchase cause linked products? 3.21 1.37 3.17 1.31 Moral Norms Overall ( 4.13 1.41 3.99 1.47 I am the kind of person who would purchase a cause supporting product. 5.07 1.51 5.04 1.49 product that supports a social cause. 3.73 1.76 3.01 1.90 I believe I have a moral obligation to purchase products that supports social causes. 3.97 1.77 3.82 1.82 Not purchasing a social cause supporting product goes against my principles. 3.72 1.70 3.58 1.71 Note: [R] stands for the reverse meaning in the original survey questionnaire.

PAGE 107

107 Table 5 6. Means and standard deviations for measures of perceived consumer effectiveness Perceived Consumer Effectiveness (PCE) High Low M SD M SD Overall ( 5.84 .90 5.83 .99 If I wanted to, I could easily purchase a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign. 5.36 1.42 5.61 1.27 It would be mostly up to me whether I purchase a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign or not. 5.82 1.33 5.99 1.17 Purchasing a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign would be easy for me to do. 5.30 1.45 5.47 1.37 Overall, how much control would you have over purchasing a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign? 6.06 1.30 6.21 1.21 Table 5 7. Means and standard deviations for measures of purchase intentions Purchase Intention High Low M SD M SD Overall ( 5.00 1.30 4.75 1.50 I intend to buy a product from a company or brand that supports a social cause. 4.80 1.47 4.66 1.59 I will try to buy a product from a company or brand that supports a social cause. 5.08 1.51 4.97 1.60 I plan to a product from a company or brand that supports a social cause. 4.76 1.51 4.58 1.54

PAGE 108

108 Table 5 8 Correlation for measurement model: High involvement ATT IN DN MN PCE PI ATT IN 50 *** DN 48 *** 73 *** MN .4 9 *** 39 *** 48 *** PCE .3 2 *** .4 6 *** 48 *** 37 *** PI .52 *** .55 *** .60 *** .74 *** .49 *** **p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 (two tailed) Note: ATT = Attitudes; IN = Injunctive norms; DN = Descriptive norms; MN = Moral norms; PCE = Perceived consumer effectiveness; PI = Purchase intentions. Table 5 9 Correlation for measurement model: Low involvement ATT IN DN MN PCE PI ATT IN 46 *** DN 60 *** 60 *** MN 38 *** 31 *** 48 *** PCE .3 3 *** .4 4 *** 47 *** 28 *** PI .49 *** .43 *** .60 *** .70 *** .4 3 *** **p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 (two tailed) Note: ATT = Attitudes; IN = Injunctive norms; DN = Descriptive norms; MN = Moral norms; PCE = Perceived consumer effectiveness; PI = Purchase intentions.

PAGE 109

109 Table 5 1 0 Effects of attitudes toward the cause related marketing on purchase intentions : High involvement Effect B S.E. t Sig. (Constant)_High i nvolvement 1.83 .29 6.26 .00*** Attitude .55 .05 .54 11.10 .00*** N = 309, R = .54, R = .29, F(1, 307) = 123.207 *** ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 Table 5 1 1 Effects of attitudes toward the cause related marketing on purchase intentions : Low involvement Effect B S.E. t Sig. (Constant)_ Low i nvolvement 1.94 .31 6.23 .00*** Attitude .52 .06 .47 9.34 .00*** N = 30 3 R = 47 R = .2 3 F(1, 30 1 ) = 87.155 ***, ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 Table 5 12 Effects of injunctive norms on purchase intentions : High involvement Effect B S.E. t Sig. (Constant)_High i nvolvement 6.57 .16 40.06 .00*** Injunctive norms .58 .06 .51 10.37 .00*** N = 309, R = .51, R = .26, F(1, 307) = 107.488*** ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 Table 5 1 3 Effects of injunctive norms on purchase intentions : Low involvement Effect B S.E. t Sig. (Constant)_ Low i nvolvement 6.34 .18 34.38 .00*** Injunctive norms .59 .06 .48 9.49 .00*** N = 303, R = .48, R = .23, F(1, 301) = 90.018*** ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

PAGE 110

110 Table 5 1 4 Effects of descriptive norms on purchase intentions : High involvement Effect B S.E. t Sig. (Constant)_High i nvolvement 6.82 .18 38.58 .00*** Injunctive norms .60 .05 .53 11.01 .00*** N = 309, R = .53, R = .28, F(1, 307) = 121.127*** ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 Table 5 1 5 Effects of descriptive norms on purchase intentions : Low involvement Effect B S.E. t Sig. (Constant)_ Low i nvolvement 7.15 .19 37.635 .00*** Injunctive norms .79 .06 .62 13.54 .00*** N = 303, R = .62, R = .38, F(1, 301) = 183.352*** ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 Table 5 1 6 Effects of moral norms on purchase intentions : High involvement Effect B S.E. t Sig. (Constant)_High i nvolvement 2.49 .17 14.42 .00*** Injunctive norms .61 .04 .66 15.40 .00*** N = 309, R = .66, R = .44, F(1, 307) = 237.117*** ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 Table 5 1 7 Effects of moral norms on purchase intentions : Low involvement Effect B S.E. t Sig. (Constant)_ Low i nvolvement 1.93 .18 10.57 .00*** Injunctive norms .71 .04 .69 16.50 .00*** N = 303, R = .69, R = .48, F(1, 301) = 272.268*** ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05

PAGE 111

111 Table 5 1 8 Effects of perceived consumer effectiveness on purchase intentions : High involvement Effect B S.E. t Sig. (Constant)_High i nvolvement 1.92 .46 4.21 .00*** Injunctive norms .53 .08 .36 6.83 .00*** N = 309, R = .36, R = .13, F(1, 307) = 46.61*** ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 Table 5 1 9 Effects of perceived consumer effectiveness on purchase intentions : Low involvement Effect B S.E. t Sig. (Constant)_ Low i nvolvement 1.14 .47 2.40 .02* Injunctive norms .62 .08 .41 7.75 .00*** N = 303, R = .41, R = .17, F(1, 301) = 60.111*** ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 Table 5 20 Multiple regression analysis for the original TPB model (Stepwise): High involvement Model Effect B S.E. t Sig. 1 (Constant) 1.83 .29 6.26 .00*** ATT .55 .05 .56 11.10 .00*** 2 (Constant) 3.78 .42 8.91 .00*** ATT .39 .06 .37 7.05 .00*** I N .36 .06 .32 6.06 .00*** 3 (Constant) 2.62 .59 4.46 .00*** A TT .36 .06 .35 6.54 .00*** I N .31 .06 .28 5.15 .00*** P CE .203 .07 .14 2.81 .01** Model 1: R = .54, R = .29, F(1, 307) = 123.207*** Model 2: R = .60, R = .36, F(2, 306) = 87.137*** Model 3: R = .62, R = .38, F(3, 305) = 65.938*** N = 612, ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 (two tailed) Note: ATT = Attitudes; IN = Injunctive norms; DN = Descriptive norms; MN = Moral norms; PCE = Perceived consumer effectiveness; PI = Purchase intentions.

PAGE 112

112 Table 5 2 1 Multiple regression analysis for the original TPB model (Stepwise): Low involvement Model Effect B S.E. t Sig. 1 (Constant) 6.34 .18 34.38 .00*** ATT .59 .06 .48 9.48 .00*** 2 (Constant) 3.95 .44 8.95 .00*** ATT .41 .07 .33 6.11 .00*** I N .35 .06 .32 5.90 .00*** 3 (Constant) 2.12 .67 3.30 .00*** A TT .31 .07 .25 4.4 .00*** I N .32 .06 .29 5.42 .00*** P CE .29 .08 .19 3.47 .00** Model 1: R = .48, R = .23, F(1, 301) = 90.018*** Model 2: R = .56, R = .31, F(2, 300) = 67.475*** Model 3: R = .58, R = .34, F(3, 299) = 50.648*** N = 303, ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 (two tailed) Note: ATT = Attitudes; IN = Injunctive norms; DN = Descriptive norms; MN = Moral norms; PCE = Perceived consumer effectiveness; PI = Purchase intentions. Table 5 2 2 Hierarchical multiple regressions for the extended TPB model: High involvement Model Effect B S.E. t Sig. Tolerance VIF 1 (Constant) 2.62 .59 4.46 .00*** ATT .36 .06 .35 6.54 .00*** .735 1.361 IN .31 .06 .28 5.15 .00*** .649 1.542 PCE .20 .07 .14 2.81 .00*** .779 1.284 2 (Constant) 2.28 .55 4.18 .00*** ATT .20 .05 .19 4.03 .00*** .639 1.566 IN .16 .07 .14 2.32 .00*** .422 2.369 PCE .11 .06 .07 1.69 .00*** .722 1.384 DN .11 .07 .10 1.58 .00*** .404 2.475 MN .42 .04 .45 9.67 .00** .663 1.507 Model 1: R = .62, R = .38, F(3, 305) = 62.036*** Model 2: R = .74, R = .55, F(5, 303) = 73.738*** N = 309, ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 (two tailed) Note: ATT = Attitudes; IN = Injunctive norms; DN = Descriptive norms; MN = Moral norms; PCE = Perceived consumer effectiveness; PI = Purchase intentions.

PAGE 113

113 Table 5 2 3 Hierarchical mu ltiple regression analysis for the extended TPB model: Low involvement Model Effect B S.E. t Sig. Tolerance VIF 1 (Constant) 2.20 .67 3.30 .00*** ATT .32 .06 .29 5.42 .00*** .766 1.305 IN .31 .07 .25 4.41 .00*** .699 1.430 PCE .29 .08 .19 3.47 .00*** .788 1.269 2 (Constant) 2.30 .65 3.53 .00*** ATT .12 .05 .11 2.36 .02* ** .609 1.642 IN .09 .06 .08 1.52 .03 ** .599 1.668 PCE .15 .07 .10 2.31 .02* ** .741 1.350 DN .28 .07 .22 3.93 .00*** .437 2.286 MN .51 .04 .49 11.78 .00** .751 1.331 Model 1: R = .58, R = .34, F(3, 299) = 50.648*** Model 2: R = .78, R = .60, F(5, 297) = 90.198*** N = 303, ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 (two tailed) Note: ATT = Attitudes; IN = Injunctive norms; DN = Descriptive norms; MN = Moral norms; PCE = Perceived consumer effectiveness; PI = Purchase intentions. Table 5 2 4 ANOVA of multiple regression analysis Model Sum of Squares df Mean Squares F Sig. Entire Data Set Regression 697.116 5 139.423 162.812 .00*** Residual 518.944 606 .856 Total 1216.060 611 High Involvement Regression 286.522 5 57.304 73.738 .00*** Residual 235.472 303 .777 Total 521.994 308 Low Involvement Regression 412.368 5 82.474 90.198 .00*** Residual 271.567 297 .914 Total 683.935 302 ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 (two tailed)

PAGE 114

114 Table 5 2 5 Summary of model comparison between high vs. low involvement Model Effect B S.E. t Sig. High (Constant) 2.28 .55 4.18 .00*** Attitudes .20 .05 .19 4.03 .00*** Injunctive Norms .16 .07 .14 2.32 .00*** Perceived Consumer Effectiveness .11 .06 .07 1.69 .00*** Descriptive Norms .11 .07 .10 1.58 .00*** Moral Norms .42 .04 .45 9.67 .00** Low (Constant) 2.30 .65 3.53 .00*** Attitudes .12 .05 .11 2.36 .02* ** Injunctive Norms .09 .06 .08 1.52 .03 ** Perceive Consumer Effectiveness .15 .07 .10 2.31 .02* ** Descriptive Norms .28 .07 .22 3.93 .00*** Moral Norms .51 .04 .49 11.78 .00** High involvement: R = .74, R = .55, F(3, 303) = 62.036*** Low involvement: R = .78, R = .60, F(5, 297) = 90.198***

PAGE 115

115 Figure 5 1 The extended TPB model in high involvement cause Purchase Intentio ns Perceived Consumer Effectiveness Attitude s Injunctive Norms Descriptive Norms Moral Norms .19 .14 .10 .45 .07

PAGE 116

116 Figure 5 2 The extended TPB model in low involvement cause Purchase Intentio ns Perceived Consumer Effectiveness Attitude s Injunctive Norms Descriptive Norms Moral Norms .11 .08 .22 .49 .10

PAGE 117

117 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION Using a quasi experimental design, this study examined two t ypes of cause involvement ( high and low ) to determine how personal characteristics affect consumers' intentions to purchase products that support a social cause in a cause related marketing campaign. Draw proposed model thus attempts to expand on its predecessor by additionally considering factors of cause involvement and other social norms (descriptive norms and moral norms). In light of height ened scholarly and industry interest in cause related marketing, the present study targets three major goals. First, it aims to contribute new insights to the literature on cause related marketing in advertising and marketing studies. Second, it seeks to t est the TPB model, which has been widely implemented in health related behaviors, and apply it to advertising/marketing studies, thereby broadening the scope of the original theory. And third, it proposes to increase the predictive power of the TPB model b y augmenting it with additional variables. More specifically, in attempting to expand this model, the current study aims to 1) examine the relationship between consumers' attitudes toward the purchase of a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign and consumers' purchase intentions; 2) identify how the expanded TPB model featuring additional social norms influences purchase intentions, and compare the effectiveness among the three social norms cited; 3) explore the influence of perceived c onsumer effectiveness, which replaced the perceived behavioral control of the original TPB model; and 4) test the

PAGE 118

118 effect of cause involvement in the extended TPB model in the context of cause related marketing. A total of six hypotheses were addressed and tested through various statistical analyses including descriptive statistics, one way analysis of variance (1 way ANOVA), simple regression analysis, multiple regression analysis, hierarchical regression analysis and the Chow test. Overall, the results sh owed that the expanded TPB model, with additional social norms significantly explained the variance of purchase intentions in a cause related marketing context. This chapter first examines the findings from the data analysis alongside their theoretical and practical implications, and concludes with a discussion of limitations of the study and future research suggestions. Summary of Results Effects of Attitude toward Cause Related Marketing Hypothesis 1 proposed that consumers' attitudes toward purchasing a product associated with a certain cause related marketing campaign relate positively to their intentions to purchase such a product. Indeed, the study found the influence of attitude on purchase intentions to be statistically significant in the positive d irection This result confirmed previous studies arguing that attitudes toward cause related marketing ultimately affect an individual's purchase intentions, as well as how often they consume the product and how loyal to the brand they become (Cornwell & C oote, 2005). In the TPB model, the personal attitude refers to personal beliefs about the consequences of consumers' personal beliefs about the consequences of buying a pr oduct that supports a certain social cause can be used as a determinant of a consumers coverall evaluation of the cause related marketing campaign.

PAGE 119

119 Effects of Social Norms Hypothesis 2 predicted the relationship between social norms and purchase intention s. According to Ajzen and Fishbein (1975), social norms are subjective norms that embody an individual's belief in the importance of others' approval of their particular behavior. Since previous research has found that subjective norms (called injunctive n orms in this study) were the weakest determinant of behavioral intention (Armitage & Conner, 2001), the current study proposed expanding the traditional social norms parameter to include additional variables (descriptive norms and moral norms) that might c larify the enhanced relationship between social norms and purchase intentions. The results from the series of simple regression analysis and multiple regression analysis demonstrated that the expanded social norms had a statically significant correlation w ith purchase intentions. By adding two additional social norms, the current study enhanced the role of social norms as a determinant of behavioral intentions in the context of cause related marketing. Such results suggest that social norms not only involve perceived social pressure from significant others, but also comprise individual perceptions of how other people should behave (descriptive norms), as well as personal feelings of responsibility (moral norms) (Parker et al., 1995). However, the results al so found evidence that repudiated expectations for some social norms variables. Consumers with stronger injunctive and descriptive norms were less likely to have purchase intentions, while moral norms evinced a positive relationship with the strongest expl anatory power in the model. There are some possible explanations for these contradictory results. First, many researchers have already tested the role of injunctive norms and descriptive norms in the context of anti social behaviors such as drug, tobacco a nd alcohol usage, and domestic violence (Cialdini et

PAGE 120

120 al., 1990; McMillan & Conner, 2003, White et al., 1994). Meanwhile, there is a paucity of research on the effects these norms exert on pro social behaviors, such as volunteering or donations. Second, unl ike any other behavioral outcomes in the TPB model, purchase intentions vis vis a specific product could not be significantly affected by social pressure. Specifically, pro social behaviors such as purchasing a socially responsible product or a cause rel ated product are more related to personal, internalized moral rules, rather than to perceived social pressure. Thus, within the TRA and TPB models, people are more likely to perform a given behavior after considering social approval as a behavioral outcome However, purchasing a cause related product is more related to an individual's own beliefs (Smith & McSweeney, 2007). Third, the beliefs. Interestingly, Lee and Green (1991) found that subjective norms were a significant predictor for purchase related behavior in some Asian countries (i.e., Japan, South Korea, etc.), while attitude was found to be the most powerful predictor in the United States. This suggest s that the strength of social influence may differ by cultural environment. Because of these differences, further research is required to better demonstrate the validity of applying injunctive norms and descriptive norms in the context of pro social behavior. Accord ingly, these social norms need to be confirmed as predictors of pro social behaviors (Smith & McSweeney, 2007); their effects, moreover, should be examined in a comparative international study (Chiou, 1998). Perceived Consumer Effectiveness Hypothesis 3 concerned consumers' beliefs that their actions will help solve a problem in society (i.e., perceived consumer effectiveness) and the manner in which those beliefs affect purchase intentions regarding a cause related product. The results

PAGE 121

121 found a positive influence of perceived consumer effectiveness on purchase intentions for a product that supports a certain social cause. In general, socially conscious consumers strongly believe that they can affect social issues through intentional purchases (Webster, 2008). Previous research has suggested that consumers with an internal locus of control i..e., those who perceive greater consumer effectiveness exhibit more socially responsible attitudes and behaviors (Berger & Corbin, 1992; Henion, 197 6; Nilss on, 2008; Webster, 1975). Thus, perceived consumer effectiveness can be demonstrably established as an explanatory factor of consumer purchase intentions as it applies to cause related marketing. Extended TPB Model The comparison set forth in this study between the original TPB model and extended TPB model suggest ed how a significant increase of variances could be explained by the variables. For the prediction of intentions to purchase a product associated with a cau se related marketing campaign, the extended TPB model accounted for an additional 26% of explained variance for the low involvement cause and 17% for the high involvement cause. Among all dependent variables, injunctive norms and descriptive norms exhibite d negative relationships with purchase intentions, while moral norms were the most powerful predictor of purchase intentions ( = .45 for the high involvement cause, = .49 for the low involvement cause, p < .001). Those correlations were the same in both high vs. low involvement cause. In this case, higher levels of attitude, moral norms, and perceived consumer effectiveness were associated with stronger purchase intentions, while lower levels of injunctive norms and descriptive norms were associated wit h stronger purchase intentions.

PAGE 122

122 Effects of Cause Involvement Another important element of cause related marketing is the level of consumer involvement with the cause (Broderik et al., 2003). First, the study examined the effectiveness of cause involvement on each of variables in the proposed model. The result found that there were significant positive effects of cause involvement on attitudes toward purchasing a product associated with a certain cause related marketing campaign Results of the test implied that people who were exposed to a high involvement cause have more positive attitudes and have more positive intentions to purchase a product with cause related marketing campaign In addition, b y assaying the regression model with the Chow test, the st udy results suggested differences in regression models between high involvement and low involvement causes. In addition, they suggest ed that the perceived relevance of the cause exerted a significant effect on individuals. Cause related marketing studies strongly suggest that cause selection is crucial to developing cause related marketing campaigns. Since the expanded TPB model assumes that the relationships of variables in the model will differ by subgroup. it can thus explain how, in this situation, cau se involvement does indeed have an effect on consumers' responses toward a cause related marketing campaign. Theoretical and Practical Implications Theoretical Implications This study provides various theoretical and practical implications to marketing pra ctitioners and researchers. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) model, which has rarely been used for cause related marketing studies, provided a jumping off point to investigate the underlying relationships in cause related marketing. By complementing

PAGE 123

123 t he original model with additional social norms (descriptive norms and moral norms), this extended TPB model explained more variance (60% of variance for the high involvement cause, 55% of variance for the low involvement cause, p < .001) in the intention t o purchase a cause related product than the original model, which used injunctive norms only. According to the meta analysis of Armitage and Conner (2001), the averag e multiple correlation of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control wit h intention explains 39% of the variance ( R = .63). In addition, Armitage and Conner suggested that, generally, subjective (i.e., injunctive) norms are the weakest explanatory factor for analyzing the variance in intention as compared to other relationshi ps in the TPB model. However, this study proposes that subjective norms have a greater impact on purchase intentions ( = .28 for the high involvement cause, = .25 for the low involvement cause, p < .01 ) as compared to perceived consumer effectiveness ( = .14 for the high involvement cause, = .19 for the low involvement cause, p < .01 ) in the TPB model. Furthermore, this study revealed an effectiveness of level of cause involvement in the extended TPB model. Accordingly, the extended TPB model accoun ts for the differing purchase intentions across various levels of cause involvement as the Chow test revealed the regressions were statistically divergent between the two groups. Considering this outcome, the present study contributed to improving the rob ustness of the knowledge of TPB theory by exploring consumers' perceptions in the field of cause related marketing

PAGE 124

124 Practical Implications This study suggests several practical implications for advertisers and marketers. When conducting cause related mar keting, companies should carefully assess what their target audiences and target customers care about and what outcome they desire after purchasing the cause associated product. Based on the study results, people are more positively affected by a cause rel ated marketing campaign when they are strongly involved in the social cause to which the cause related marketing is dedicated. These findings may influence advertising and marketing communications practices in many ways. For a cause related marketing camp aign to succeed, strenuous investigation is needed so that marketers and advertisers can identify consumers who have a positive attitude toward the cause related marketing, a strong moral belief, and a strong perceived personal ability to involve themselve s in cause related consumption. To resonate with their target market, marketers urgently need to identify the logical fit between the brand and their consumers. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research By employing the TPB model in the context of c ause related marketing, this study has suggested some unexpected and potentially valuable findings; however, eight limitations have appeared. First, this study was conducted using an online survey tool, with self administered questionnaires. The use of new technology in collecting data provides several advantages compared to traditional data collecting methods (such as personal interviews, telephone surveys, and mail surveys) in that new surveys are substantially cheaper and easier to implement and require less time to develop, utilize, and collect data (Babbie, 2007; Spizziri, 2000). However, online platforms may limit the respondent pool to people who have the ability to operate a computer and access the

PAGE 125

125 Internet. Since this survey invitation was distribu ted by United Sample exclusively via email, the possession of an email account was another restriction in the sample procedure. Second, additional sampling issues appeared based on demographics. The survey respondents in this study were recruited through United Sample 's consumer panelist database. Therefore, even though the researcher tried to constrain the effects of gender, age, and geography by recruiting samples from evenly distributed demographic variables, it would be difficult to generalize the resu lts of this study to the overall population. Third, the extended TPB model containing additional descriptive norms, moral norms, and cause involvement is necessarily more complex than the original model. To test overall relationships, more measurements an d indicator variables were required. According to Hair et al. (2006), a larger sample size is needed to increase stability in the solutions. On the other hand, "as the sample size becomes larger (>400), the method becomes more sensitive and almost any diff erence is detected, making goodness of fit measures suggest poor fit" (Hair et al., 2006, p. 741). Therefore, the overall model could not be tested using SEM, which considers all the possible measurement errors and latent variables. However, this study emp loyed a series of simple regression analysis, multiple regression analysis, hierarchical regression analysis, and the Chow test to explore the relationships in the model. Thus, it would be worthwhile for future studies to examine the effects of all possibl e factors with a more conservative model than that employed in this study with a more effective and efficient way of analysis

PAGE 126

126 Fourth, cause involvement was manipulated as a hypothetical scenarios and randomly presented to two different cohorts. This study adopted a quasi experimental study, there for, a post test was not employed to see whether the cause involvement level from the respon dents has been properly manipulated or not. Therefore, for the future study, true experimental research design with control group and pretest/posttest for a treated and comparison group is recommended. Fifth, the extended TPB model should be tested in oth er contexts besides that of cause related marketing. For example, this model appears tailor made for social marketing studies, especially in light of the conceptual similarities between social and cause related marketing, and considering that cause related marketing campaigns are an accepted practice of social marketing (Kotler & Lee, 2005). Thus, it may suggested worthwhile for future studies to examine the effects of all possible factors on behavioral changes from social marketing perspectives. Sixth th is study tested the effects of cause involvement in cause related marketing with the extended TPB model. During the first survey to identify the high involvement cause and low involvement cause, only six causes were presented to survey respondents. Needles s to say, this sampling is far from representative of the vast array of contemporary social causes. For future studies, a more extensive survey to identify cause involvement is recommended. Seventh this study only tested cause involvement to determine an y differences in a model between the two groups (high vs. low cause involvement). Therefore, a fictitious brand name was used for both the commercial company and the nonprofit in the scenario to reduce any external biases that might affect the study resul ts. However,

PAGE 127

127 for future research, testing the effects of brand familiarity or the fit between commercial brand and nonprofits with real brand names would provide a richer understanding of the model in cause related marketing. Eight h this study does not employ demographic variables in the model. For future studies, it would be interesting to examine the effects of gender (female vs. male), age (i.e., Millennials vs. baby boomers), or geography (i.e., cultural differences by country or state, etc.).

PAGE 128

128 APP ENDIX A STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT First of all, thank you for your participation. The purpose of this study is to understand your opinion about issues that could have broad social concern. Your responses are extremely important and valuable to this research. Your participation in this stu dy is completely voluntary. You may withdraw at any moment and no penalty will be applied. However, full completion is desired for best results. All of your answers will be remained confidential. The individual results of this study will only be viewed by the researcher and the supervisor. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Any information that can be used to identify an individual will be kept safe in a locked file that can only be accessed by the researcher. Group resu lts of this study will be available by the end of 2012 upon request. Questionnaire completion should take approximately 10 minutes. If you agree to participate, please check the consent box below and follow the instructions. For completing the survey, yo u will be compensated with an online gift card, virtual currency or another type of compensation in other formats, which is equivalent to $3. There are no anticipated risks to you associated with participating in this study. If you have any questions ab out the project, please feel free to email me at jaejinny@ufl.edu. If you have additional questions or problems regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the UFIRB Office at: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesvill e, FL 32611 2250; phone 392 0433; email irb2@ufl.edu.

PAGE 129

129 I thank you in advance for your participation! Researcher: Jaejin Lee, MADV Ph.D. Student Department of Advertising College of Journalism and Communications University of Florida Supervisor: Cynthia R. Morton, Ph.D., M.B.A. Associate Professor Department of Advertising College of Journalism and Communications University of Florida ___ I understand the procedures described above. My questions have been answered and I agree to participate in this study.

PAGE 130

130 APPENDIX B CAUSE INVOLVEMENT SURV EY Instructions: Read the following questions and statements carefully. Section1. Choose one location between each adjective pair to rate your opinion about the issue in the statement introduction. For the questions with scale responses, mark with an "X" over the line that best corresponds in your opinion. Please, answer honestly how you feel about each. 1) To me, diabetes is, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Important Unimportant* Boring Interesting Relevant Irrelevant* Exciting Unexciting* Means nothing Means a lot to me Appealing Unappealing* Fascinating Mundane* Worthless Valuable Involving Uninvolving* Not needed Needed (Note: *This statement is reversely worded in the survey to ensure more accurate responses from the participants.) 2) To me, heart disease and heart health is, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Important Unimportant* Boring Interesting Relevant Irrelevant* Exciting Unexciting* Means nothing Means a lot to me Appealing Unappealing* Fascinating Mundane* Worthless Valuable Involving Uninvolving* Not needed Needed (Note: *This statement is reversely worded in the survey to ensure more accurate responses from the participants.)

PAGE 131

131 3) To me, breast cancer is, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Important Unimportant* Boring Interesting Relevant Irrelevant* Exciting Unexciting* Means nothing Means a lot to me Appealing Unappealing* Fascinating Mundane* Worthless Valuable Involving Uninvolving* Not needed Needed (Note: *This statement is reversely worded in the survey to ensure more accurate responses from the participants.) 4) To me, HIV/AIDS is, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Important Unimportant* Boring Interesting Relevant Irrelevant* Exciting Unexciting* Means nothing Means a lot to me Appealing Unappealing* Fascinating Mundane* Worthless Valuable Involving Uninvolving* Not needed Needed (Note: *This statement is reversely worded in the survey to ensure more accurate responses from the participants.) 5) To me, prostate cancer is, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Important Unimportant* Boring Interesting Relevant Irrelevant* Exciting Unexciting* Means nothing Means a lot to me Appealing Unappealing* Fascinating Mundane* Worthless Valuable Involving Uninvolving* Not needed Needed (Note: *This statement is reversely worded in the survey to ensure more accurate responses from the participants.)

PAGE 132

132 6) To me, child obesity is, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Important Unimportant* Boring Interesting Relevant Irrelevant* Exciting Unexciting* Means nothing Means a lot to me Appealing Unappealing* Fascinating Mundane* Worthless Valuable Involving Uninvolving* Not needed Needed (Note: *This statement is reversely worded in the survey to ensure more accurate responses from the participants.) Section 2 These questions are for demographic information. Please answer the following questions by filling in the blank or checking one option. 4_1. What is your gender? 1) Male______ 2) Female______ 4_2. What is your age? ___________ years old 4_3. What is your highest level of education (highest degree completed)? 1) Less than High School 2) High School/GED 3) Some College 4) 2 Year College Degree (Associates) 5) 4 Year College Degree (BA/BS) 6) Master's Degree 7) Doctoral Degree 8) Professional Degree (MD/JD) 9) Other (please type your answer here : _____________________ ) 4_4. What is your ethnicity? 1) Arabic 2) Asian 3) Black/African American 4) Hispanic/Latino 5) Native American 6) White/Caucasian 7) Other (please type your answer here : _____________________ )

PAGE 133

133 4_5. What is your annual household income? 1) $0 $19,999 2) $20,000 $39,999 3) $40,000 $59,999 4) $60,000 $79,999 5) $80,000 $99,999 6) $100,000 $119,999 7) $120,000 or above 4_6. Below, please provide me with any comments regarding the website you browsed and the questionnaire you completed: This is the end of the survey. Thank you so much for your time and participation!

PAGE 134

134 APPENDIX C MAIN SURVEY Statement of Informed Consent Hello. My name is Jaejin Lee and I am a doctoral candidate in the College of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of Florida. Thank you for your willingness to participate in this research study. I am conducting a research investigation to better understand consumers' opinion and perceptions about marketing activities associated with non profit organizations or social causes. For example, company A is running the marketin g campaign, Thanks and Giving ," to support children's hospital. Every time you purchase a product with the sign of Thanks and Giving from company A, it will donate $1 from that sale. Your purchase will help raise extra funds for a children's hospital. H ere are more examples of products that sponsor a certain social cause. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your responses are important and valuable to this research. You may withdraw at any moment and no penalty will be applied. However, full completion is desired for best results. All of your answers will be remained confidential. Your answers will be used for statistical purposes only and will remain strictly anonymous to the extent protected by law. The individua l results of this study will only be viewed by the researcher and the supervisor. Any information that can be used to identify an individual will be kept safe in a locked file that can only be accessed by the researcher. Group results will be available for the public to view by the end of 2012 upon request. This survey will take about 20 minutes to complete. If you agree to participate, please check the consent box below and follow the instructions. For completing the survey, you will be compensated wi th an online gift card, virtual currency or another type of compensation in other formats, which is equivalent to $4. There are no anticipated risks to you associated with participating in this study. If you have any questions about the project, please fe el free to email me at jaejinny@ufl.edu. If you have additional questions or problems regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the UFIRB Office at: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 39 2 0433; email irb2@ufl.edu.

PAGE 135

135 I thank you in advance for your participation! Researcher: Jaejin Lee, MADV Doctoral Candidate Department of Advertising College of Journalism and Communications University of Florida Supervisor: Cynthia R. Morton, Ph.D., M.B.A. Associate Professor Department of Advertising College of Journalism and Communications University of Florida __ I have read the procedures above and agree to participate in this study. __ I have read the pro cedures above and do not agree to participate in this study.

PAGE 136

136 Section 1. Please read the below script and answer the following questions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In the p a st five years, R Plus has donated 5 percent of every purchase made by its customers during the month of July to United Cares, a non profit organization that supports heart care & heart disease and related medical research This money is used primarily for preventing disease an d diminishing suffering from it through research, patient education, and early detection. This July, we will continue to support this vital cause by donating 5 percent of every purchase made by customers. All donated money will be used for research and pub lic education for prevention of this disease in our community. Help us help others with your next purchase. Together, we can make a difference! Together, we can make a difference! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you have finished reading, please click "next" below. Next

PAGE 137

137 Section 2. Attitude, Social Norms, and Perceived Consumer Effectiveness 2_1. The following are some questions about your attitude about t his cause related marketing from R Plus Please identify your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. Q: "For me, to buy a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign is..." 1.* Valuable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Worthless 2. Harmful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Beneficial 3.* Pleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unpleasant 4.* Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unenjoyable 5.* Good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bad (Note: *This statement is reversely worded in the survey to ensure more accurate responses from the participants.) 2_2. This section asks whether others important to you such as family members, friends, or coworkers think you should buy a cause related m arketing product from R Plus Please identify your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 The people closest to me would support me in purchasing a product that sponsors a cause. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 The people closest to me would disapprove if I purchased a product that sponsors a cause. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 Most people who are important to me think that I would buy a cause linked product. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 Do the people who are important to me approve or disapprove of my purchasing a cause supporting product? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 The people close to me approve my purchase if I were to purchase a cause related product. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 138

138 2_4. This section asks whether or not you believe others important to you such as family members, friends, or coworkers should buy a cause related marketing product from R Plus Please identify your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 Most people who are important to me would purchase a product that supports a social cause. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 The people closest to me would not purchase product that supports a social cause. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 How likely do you think it is that people who are important to you purchase cause linked products? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2_5. This section asks whether or not you believe you should buy a cause related marketing product from R Plus Please identify your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1. I am the kind of person who would purchase a cause supporting product. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I would feel guilty if I purchase a product that supports a social cause. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I believe I have a moral obligation to purchase products that supports social causes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. N ot purchasing a social cause supporting product goes against my principles. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 139

139 2_6. Please identify your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 If I wanted to, I could easily purchase a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 It would be mostly up to me whether I purchase a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign or not. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 Purchasing a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign would be easy for me to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No Control Neutral Complete Control 4 Overall, how much control would you have over purchasing a product associated with a cause related marketing campaign? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 140

140 Section 3. Purchase Intention The following are some questions about your personal thought whether you want to buy a cause related marketing product or not. Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1. I intend to buy a product from a company or brand that supports a social cause. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I will try to buy a product from a company or brand that supports a social cause. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I plan to a product from a company or brand that supports a social cause. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Section 4 These questions are for demographic information. Please answer the following questions by filling in the blank or checking one option. 4_1. What is your gender? 1) Male______ 2) Female______ 4_2. What is your age? ___________ years old 4_3. Have you ever purchased a product with a cause related marketing campaign? 1) Yes __ 2) No __ (If they say no, the questionnaire will go directly to 4_6.) 4_4. If you answered yes to the previous question, how many times have you bought a social cause supporting product in 2011? 1) 1 5 times in 2011 2) 6 10 times in 2011 3) 11 15 times in 2011 4) 16 20 times in 2011 5) 21 or more times in 2011

PAGE 141

141 4_5. How often do you buy social cause supporting products in a month? 1) Never 2) Once in a month 3) About 2 5 times in a month 4) About 6 10 times in a month 5) More than 10 times in a month 4_6. What is your highest level of education (highest degree completed)? 1) Less than High School 2) High School/GED 3) Some College 4) 2 Year College Degree (Associates) 5) 4 Year College Degree (BA/BS) 6) Master's Degree 7) Doctoral Degree 8) Other (please write your answer here : _____________________ ) 4_7. What is your ethnicity? 1) Arabic 2) Asian 3) Black/African American 4) Hispanic/Latino 5) Native American 6) White/Caucasian 7) Other (please writ e your answer here : _____________________ ) 4_8. What is your annual household income? 1) $0 $19,999 2) $20,000 39,999 3) $40,000 $59,999 4) $60,000 $79,999 5) $80,000 $99,999 6) $100,000 -$119,999 7) $120,000 or above 4_9. Below, please provide me with any comments regarding the website you browsed and the questionnaire you completed: This is the end of the survey. Thank you so much for your time and participation!

PAGE 142

142 LIST OF REFERENCES Adkins, S. (1999). Cause related marketing: Who cares wins Oxford: Butterworth Heine mann. Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (2009). Statistical methods for the social sciences [4th edition]. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human D e cision Processes, 50 179 211. Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self efficacy, locus of control, and the the ory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665 683. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ajzen, I, & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal directed behavior: Attitudes, intentio ns, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2 2 (5 ), 453 474. Andreasen, A. R. (1996). Profits for nonprofits: Find a corporate partner. Harvard Busine ss Review. 74 (6), 47 59. Andreasen, A. R. (2002). Marketing social marketing in the social change marketplace. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. 21 ( 1), 3 1 3. Andreasen, A. R., & M. E. Drumwright. (2000). Alliances and ethics in social marketing. I n Ethical issues in social marketing, eds. Andreasen, A. K., 95 124. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). E fficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A met a analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40 471 499. Aronson, E., Ellsworth, P. C., Carlsmith, J. M., & Gonzales, M. H. (1990). Methods of re search in social psychology. NY: McGraw Hill Ba bbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Educ ation. Barone, M. J., Norman, A. T., & Miyazaki, A. D. (2007). Consumer response to retailer u se of cause related marketing: Is more fit better?. Journal of Retailing, 83 (4), 437 445. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in soci al psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Jo urnal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1173 1182.

PAGE 143

143 Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned be havior. Journal of Research in Personality 25 (3), 285 301. Berger, I. E. & Corbin R. M.(1992). Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in other s as moderators of environme ntally responsible behaviors Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 11 (2), 79 100. Berger, I. E. Cunningham, P. H., & Kozinets, R. V. (1999). The processing of cause relat ed marketing claims: Cues, biases, or motivators? in Advances in Consumer Rese arch, 26, eds. Arnould, E. J. & Scott, L. M., & Provo, U. T.: Association for Consum er Research, 491 497. Berglind, M., & Nakata, C. (2005). Cause related marketing: More buck than bang? Busi ness Horizons, 48 (5), 443 453. Bloom, P. N., Hoeffler, S., Keller, K., & Meza, C. (2006). How social cause marketing aff ects consumer perceptions. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47 (2), 49 55. B ok, S. (1998). Mayhem: Violence as public entertainment New York: Perseus Publishi ng. Botvin, G. J., Goldberg, C. J., Botvin, E M., & Dusenbury, L. (1993). Smoking behavior of adolescence exposed to cigarette advertising. Public Health Reports, 108, 217 224. Bozionelos, G., & Bennett, P. (1999). The theory of planned behavior as predictor of exe rcise: The moderating influence of beliefs and personality variables. Journal of Hea lth Psychology, 4 517 529. Bronn. P. S., & Vrioni, A. B. (2001). Corporate social responsibility an d cause related m arketing: An overview. International Journal of Advertising, 20 207 222. Broderick A., Jogi, A., & Garry, T. (2003). Tickled pink: The personal meaning of cause r elated marketing for customers. Journal of Marketing Management, 19 (5 6), 5 83 610. Brown, T. E., Peter, A. D., Richard, F. G., & Gunst, R. F. (2005). Spreading the word: Inv estigating antecedents of consumers' positive Word of Mouth intentions and behav iors in a retailing context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33 ( 2), 123 138. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cog nitive response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo gy, 37 (1), 97 109.

PAGE 144

144 Campbell, L. Gulas, C. S., & Gruca, T. S. (1999). Corporate giving behavior and decisio n maker social consciousness. Journal of Business Ethics. 19 (4), 375 383. Carringer, P. T. (1994). Not just a worthy cause: Cause related marketing delivers the go ods and the good. American Advertising, 10, 16 19. C arroll, A. B. (1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performa nce. Academy of Management Review, 4 497 505. Carroll, A. B. (1998). The four faces of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Revi ew 100/101 1 7. Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2003). Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management 5th ed. Australia: Thomson South Western. Carroll, A. B. (2008). A history of corporate social responsibility: Concepts and practices. In A. Crane., A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, and D. S. Siegel, The Oxford ha ndbook of corporate social responsibility: 19 46. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Capriotti, P., & Moreno. A. (2006). Corporate citizenship and public relations: The import ance and interactivity of social responsibility issues on corporate websites. Public Relations Review. 33, 84 91. CauseMarketingForum.com (2010). 2010 Golden Halo Award Business Macy's. Retrie ved August 6, 2011, from http://www.causemarketingforum.com/site/c.bkLUKcOTL kK4E/ b.6381409/apps/s/content.asp?ct=8972105 Celsi, R., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Jo urnal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 210 224. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of s ource versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psyc hology, 39 (5), 752 766. Chang, M. K. (1998) Predicting unethical behavior: A comparison of the theory of reaso ned action and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 17 (16), 1825 1834. Charng, H. W., Piliavin, J. A., & Callero, P. L. (1988). Role identity and reasoned action i n the prediction of repeated behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly 51 (4), 303 317 Chiou J. S. (1998). The effects of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral c ontrol on consumers' purchase intentions: The moderating effects of product knowl edge and attention to social comparison information. Proceedings of the National Science Co uncil, 9 (2), 298 308.

PAGE 145

145 Chow, G. C. (1960), Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica 28 (3), 591 605. Ciadini, R. B., Reno, R. R., Kallgre, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: R ecycling the conc ept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Perso nality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015 1026. Collins, M. (1994). Global corporate philanthropy and relationship marketing. European Management Journal, 12 (2), 226 233. Cone Inc. (2002). 2 002 Cone corporate citizenship study. Retrieved August 2, 2011, fro m www.coneinc.com. Cone Inc. (2010). Cause Evolution Study, Retrieved August 2, 2011, from www.coneinc. com. Conner, M., & Armitage, C. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review a nd avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1429 1 464. Conner, M., & McMillan, B. (1999). Interaction effects in the theory of planned behaviour : Studying cannabis use. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 195 222. Conner, M., & Sparks, P. (1996). The theory of planned behaviour and health behaviors In M. Conner & P. Norman (Eds.), Pred icting health behaviour 121 162 Bucking ham: Open University Press. Cornwell, T. B., & Cotte, L. V. (2003). Corporate sponsorship of a cause: the role of iden tification in purchase intent. Journal of Business Research. 58 268 276. Creyer, E. H., & Ross Jr., W. T. (1992). The impact of corporate behavior on perceived p roduct value. Marketing Letters, 7 (2), 173 185. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometri ka, 16( 3), 297 334. Cortina, J. M., (2003). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applicati ons. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (1), 98 104. Cui, Y., Trent, E. S., Sullivan, P. M., & Matiru, G. N. (2003). Cause related marketing: Ho w generation Y responds. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Manageme nt, 31 (6), 310 320. David, P., S. Kline & Dai. Y. (2005). Corporate social responsibility practices, corporate i dentity, and purchase intention: A dual process model. Journal of Public Relations Res earch, 17 (3), 291 313.

PAGE 146

146 Davidson, J. (1997). Cancer sells. Working Woman, 22 (May), 36 39. Donovan. R. & Henley. N. (2004). Social marketing: Principle and practice. Social Marke ting Quarterly. X (1), 31 34. Drumwright, M. (1996). Company advertising with a social dimension: the role of nonec onomic criteria. Journal of Marketing, 60 71 87. Duncan. T. & Moriarty, S. (1997), Driving Brand Value: Using Integrated Marketing to Dri ve Stakeholder Relationships. New York: McGraw Hill. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcou rt Brace Jovanovich Eikenberry, A. (2009). The Hidden Costs of Cause Marketing. Stanford Social Innovatio n Review 7 (3), 50 55. Available at http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.librar y.maryv ille.edu Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Cumberland, A., & Carlo, G. (1999). Consistency and development of prosocial dispositions: A longitudinal stud y. Child Development, 70 1360 1372. Ellen, P. S., Mohr, A., & We bb, D. J. (2000). Charitable programs and the retailer: Do the y mix? Journal of Retailing, 76 (3), 393 406. Elliot, R., Jobber, D., & Sharp, J. (1995). Using the theory of reasoned action to underst and organizational behaviour: The role of belief salience British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, I6 1 172. File, K., M. & Prince, R. A. (1998). Cause related marketing and corporate philanthropy i n the privately held enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, 17 (14), 1529 1539. Frederick, W. C. (1994). From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of business and society th ought. Business and Society, 33, 150 66. Frederick, W. C. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: Deep roots, flourishing growth, promising future. In A. Crane., A. McWill iams, D. Matten, J. Moon, and D. S. Sieg el, The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility Oxford: Oxford Universi ty Press. Freeman, F. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach Boston: Pitman Gard, L. (2004). We're good guys, but from us. Business Week, 3909, 72 73.

PAGE 147

147 Giles, M., McClenahan, C., Cairns, E., & Mallet, J. (2004). An application of the theory o f planned behavior to blood donation: The importance of self efficacy. Health Educ ation Research, 19, 380 391. Gile, M., & Cairns, E. (2011). Blood donation and Ajzen's theory of planned behaviour: An examination of perceived behavioural control. British Journal of Social Psychol ogy. 34 (2), 173 188. Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and report lpha reliability coefficient for likert type scales. In 2003 Midwest Research to Practi ce Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education Columbus, OH, 82 88. Godin, G., & Kok, G. (1996). The theory of planned behavior: A review of its application s to health related behaviors. American Journal of Health Promotion, 11 87 98. Godin, G., Valois, P., Jobin, J., & Ross, A. (1991). Prediction of intentions to exercise of individuals who have suffered from coronary heart disease. Journ al of Clinical Psh ychology, 47, 762 772. Grunert, S. G. & Juhl, H. J. (1995). Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organ ic food. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16 (1), 39 62. Gupta, P. B. & Gould, S. J. (1997). Consumers' perceptions of the et hics and acceptability of product placements in movies: Product category and individual differences. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 19 (1), 37 50. Gupta, S. & Pirch, J. (2006). A Taxonomy of cause related marketing research: Current findings and future research directions. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Mar keting, 15 (1), 25 43. Heinon, K. E. (1976). Ecological marketing. Columbus: Ohio Grid Inc. Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R. & Kim. J. (1991). Effects of Word of Mouth and product attribu te information on persuasion: An accessibility diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (4), 454 462. Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2002). Building brand equity through corpor ate societal mark eting. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. 21 (1), 78 89. IEG Sponsorship Report (2011). Sponsorship spending: 2011 Proves better than expect ed; Bigger gains set for 2011. Retrieved August, 2, 2011, from https://www.sponsor ship.com/

PAGE 148

148 Javagi, R. G., Traylor, M. B., Gross, A. C., & Lampman, E. (1994). Awareness of sponso rship and corporate image: An empirical investigation. Journal of Advertising. 23 (4) 47 58. Jagger, W., Janssen, M. A., De Vries, H. J. M., De Greef, J., Vlek, G. A. J. (2000). Beha viour in commons dilemmas: Homo economicus and homo psychologicus in an ec ological economic model. Ecological Economics, 35 357 379. Johnston, K. L., & White, K. M. (2003). Binge drinking: A test of the role of group norms i n the Theory of P lanned Behavior. Psychology and Health, 18, 63 77. Kahle, L. R., Beatty, S. E., & Homer, P. (1986). Alternative measurement approaches to consumer values: The list of values (LOV) and values and life style (VALS). Journa l of Consumer Research, 13, 405 409 Kaiser, F. G.,Woelfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological be haviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19 (1), 1 19. Kang, Y. S., & Herr, P. M. (2006) Beauty and the beholder: Toward an integrated model of communication s ource effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (1), 123 130. Kerr, G., Johnston, K., & Beatson, A. (2008). A framework of corporate social responsibil ity for advertising accountability: The case of Australian government advertising ca mpaign. Journal of Ma rketing Communications. 14 (2), 155 169. Kinnear, T. C. & Taylor, J. R. (1973). The effect of ecological concern on brand perceptio ns, Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (2), 191 197. Krishna, A. & Rajan U. (2009). Cause marketing: Spillover effects of cause related prod ucts in a product portfolio. Management Science, 55 (9), 1469 1485. Ko hlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to s ocialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347 480). Chicago: Rand McNally. Kotler, P., and N. Lee. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for y our company and your cause Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Kotler, P. & Zaltman, G. (1971 ). Social marketing: An approach to planned social change. Journal of Marketing 35 3 12. Konkoly, T. H., & Perloff, R. M. (1990). Applying the theory of reasoned action to charita ble intent. Psychological Reports, 67 91 94.

PAGE 149

149 Kropp, F., Holden, S. J. S., & Lavak, A. M. (1999). Cause related marketing and values i n Australia. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. 4 (1), 69 80. Kumar, D. (2009). Corporate social responsibility. http://www.articlealley.com/article_11 97665_15 .html (accessed July 20, 2009) Lee, C., & Green, R. T. (1991). Cross cultural examination of the Fishbein behavioural i ntentions model. Journal of International Business Studies, 22, 289 305. Lee, L., Piliavin, J. A., & Call, V. R. (1999). Giving time, money, and blood: Similarities a nd differences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62, 276 291. Leonard, L. N. K., Cronan, T. P., & Kreie, J. (2004). What influences IT ethical behavior i ntentions Planned behavior, reasoned action, perceived importance, or individual c haracteristics?. Information and Management, 42 143 158. Liu, G. & Ko, W. (2011). An analysis of cause related marke ting implementation strategi es through social alliance: partnership conditions and strategic objectives. Journal of Business Ethics.100 253 281. Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A comparison of the theory of planned be havior and the theor y of reasoned action. Personality and Social Psychology Bullet in, 18, 3 9. Maignan, I, & Farrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An int egrated framework Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (10), 3 19. Manstead, A. S. R., & Parker, D. (1995). Evaluating and extending the theory of planne d behaviour. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psy chology 6, 69 95. Chichester: Wiley. McDonald, C. (1991). Sponsorship and the image of sponsor. Eur opean Journal of Mark eting, 25 (11), 31 38. McMillan, B., & Conner, M. (2003). Using the theory of planned behaviour to understand alcohol and tobacco use in students. Psychology, Health, and Medicine, 8, 317 328. Mele, D. (2008). Corporate social respons ibility theories. In A. Crane., A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 47 82). Oxford University Press: Oxford. Menon, A., & Menon, A. (1997). Enviropreneurial Marketing Strategy: The Emergence of Corporate Environmentalism as Market Strategy. Journal of Marketing 61 (1), 51 67.

PAGE 150

150 Moore, S. M., & Ohtsuka, K. (1999). The prediction of gambling behavior and problem g ambling fro m attitudes and perceived norms. Social Behavior and Personality 27 ( 5), 455 466. Moosmayer, D. C., & Fuljahn, A. (2010), Consumer perceptions of cause related marketi ng campaigns. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27 (6), 543 549. Mullen, J. (1997). Performance based corporate philanthropy: How "giving smart" can fu rther corporate goals. Public Relations Quarterly, 42 (2), 42 48. Mullen, P. D., Hersey, J. C., & Iverson, D. C. (1987). Health behavior models compared Social Science a nd Medicine, 24, 973 983. Murray, K. B., & Vogel, C. M. (1998). Using a hierarchy of effects approach to gauge the effectiveness of corporate social responsibility to generate goodwill toward the firm: Financial versus nonfinancial impacts. Journal of Bu siness Research. 38 (2), 141 1 59. Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives: Examining the role of brand cause fit in cause related marketing. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 1 (32), 30 55. Nilsson, J. (2008). Investment with a Conscience: Examining the impact of pro social att itudes and perceived financial performance on socially responsible investment beh avior. Journal of Business Ethics, 83 (2), 307 325. Nucifora, J., Gallois, C., & Kashima, Y. (1993). Influences of condom use among underg raduates: Testing the theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour. In D. J. T erry, C. Gallois, & M. McCamish (Eds.), The theory of reasoned action: Its applicati on to AIDS prevention behaviour (pp. 47 64). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Olson, G., D., Praejus, J., W., and Brown, N. R. (2003) When profit equals price: Consu mer confusion about donation amounts in cause related marketing. Journal of Publ ic and Marketing, 22 (2), 170 180. Parker, D., Manst ead, A. S. R., & Stradling, S. G. (1995). Extending the theory of plann ed behaviour: The role of personal norm British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 127 137. Parker, D., Stradling, S. G., Manstead, A. S. R. (2006). Modifying beliefs and attitudes to exceeding the speed limit: An intervention study based on the theory of planned b ehavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 26 (1), 1 19. Petkova, K. G., Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1995 ). Salience of anti abortion be liefs and co mmitment to an attitudinal position: On the strength, structure, and predictive validi ty of anti abortion attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25 463 483.

PAGE 151

151 Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease pers uasion by enhancing message relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personalit y and Social Psychology, 37 (10), 1915 1926. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Central and peripher al routes to persuasion: Appli cation to advertising. In L. Percy & A. Woodside (Eds.) Advertising and consumer psychology (pp. 3 23). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contempor a ry approaches. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a deter minant of argument based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo gy, 41 (5), 847 855. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consum er Research, 10 (2), 135 146. Peattie, S. & Peattie, Ken. (2003). Ready to fly solo? Reducing social marketing's depen dence on commercial marketing theory. Marketing Theory, 3 (3), 365 385. Polonsky, M. J., & Macdonald, E. K. (2000). Exploring the link between cause related m arketing and brand building. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Secto r Marketi ng, 5 (1), 46 57. Polonsky M. J., & Wood, G. (2001). Can the overcommercialization of cause related ma rketing harm society? Journal of Macromarketing. 21, 18 22. Pomazel, R. J., & Jaccard, J. J. (1976). An informational approach to altruistic behaviou r. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33 317 326. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthr opy. In Harvard Business Review on Corporate Responsibility (pp. 27 64). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Schoo l Publishing Corporation. Povey, R., Conner, M., Sparks, P., James, R., & Shepherd, R. (2000). The theory of pla nned behaviour and healthy eating: Examining additive and moderating effects of s ocial influence variables. Psychology and Health, 14 991 1006 Pringle, H. & Thompson, M. (2001). Brand spirit: How cause related marketing builds br ands. London: John Wiley. Quester, P. G. (1997). Awareness as a measure of sponsorship effectiveness: The Adel aide Formula One Grand Prix and evidence of incidental ambush effects. Journal o f Marketing Communications, 3 (1), 1 20.

PAGE 152

152 Raats, M. M., Shepherd, R., & Sparks, P. (1995). Including moral dimensions of choice within the structure of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Ps ychology 25 (6), 484 494. Rentschler, R., & Wood, G. (2001). Cause relate marketing: Can the arts afford not to p articipate?. Service Marketing Quarterly, 22 (1), 57 69. Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Pra eger. Richard, R., van der Pligt, J., & de Vries, N. K. (1996). Anticipated regret and time persp ective: Changing sexual risk taking behavior. Journal of Behavioral Decision Makin g, 9, 185 199 Ross, J. K., Patterson, L. T., & Stutts, M. A. (1992). Consumer perceptions of o rganizati ons that use cause related marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Scienc e. 20 (1). 93 97. Roy, D. P., & Graeff, T. R. (2003). Consumer attitudes toward cause related marketing a ctivities in professional sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 1 2 (3), 163 172. Sherif, M. & Cantril, H. (1947). The Psychology of Ego Involvements: Social Attitudes a nd Identifications. New York: Wiley. Sherif, M. & Hovland, C. I. (1961) Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Reaction to Communication and Attitude Change. New Haven, CT: Greenwood. Sherif, C. W., Kelly, M., Rogers, H. L., Sarup, G. & Titler, B. I. (1973) Personal involvem ent, social judgment, and action, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27 311 328. Schuhwerk, M. E., & Lefkoff Hagius, R. (1995). Green or non green? Does type of appe al matter when advertising a green product? Journal of Advertising, 24 (2), 45 55. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative Influence on Altruism. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advanc es in Experimental So cial Psychology, (pp. 221 279). Academic Press: New York. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values Theoretical a dvances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psy chology, 25 1 65. Schwart z, S. H., & Huismans, S. (1995). Value priorities and religiosity in four western re ligions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58 (2), 88 107.

PAGE 153

153 Sheikh, S., & Beise Zee, R. (2011). Corporate social responsibility or cause related mar keting? The role of cause sp ecificity of CSR. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28 (1 ). 27 39. Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and futur e research. Journal of Consumer Research 15 325 343. Smith, J. R., & McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable giving: The effectiveness of a revised theory of planned behaviour model in predicting donating intentions and behaviour. Journal of Community & Applied Psychology, 17 363 3 86. Smith, S. M., & Alcorn, D. S. (1991). Cause marketing: A new direction in the marketing of corporate responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 8 (3), 19 28. Sparks, P., Guthrie, G. A., Shepherd, R. (1997). The dimensional structure of the percei v ed behavioural construct. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27 (5), 418 438. Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1992). Self identity and the theory of planned behavior as sessing the role of identi fi cation with green consumerism. Social Psychology Quart erly, 55 388 399. Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., & Frewer, L. J. (1995). Assessing and structuring attitudes to ward the use of gene technology in food production: The role of perceived ethical o bligation. Basic & Applied Social Psychology 16 (3), 267 285. Stipp, H & Schiavone, N. P. (1996). Modeling the impact of Olympic sponsorship on cor porate image. Journal of Advertising Research, 22 28. Stone, I. L. (2008). Philanthropy as public relations: A critical perspective on cause mark eting. International Journal of Communication, 2 20 40. Strahilevitx, M. & Myers, J. H. (1998). Donations to charity as purchase incentives: Ho w well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (1), 434 446. Straughan R D & Roberts J A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: a lo ok at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marke ting, 16 (6) 558. Stryker, S. (1968). Identify salience and role performance. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 4 558 64.

PAGE 154

154 Tangari, A. H., Folse, J. A. G., Burton, S., & Kees, J. (2010). The moderating influence o f consumers' temporal orientation on the framing of societal needs and corporate r esponses in cause related marketing campaigns. Journal of Advertising, 39 (2) 35 50. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (2000). Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of plann ed behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions. International Journal of Res earch in Marketing, 12 (2), 137 155. Terry, D. J. & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Cro up norms and the attitude behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 776 793. Theodorakis, Y. (1992). Prediction of athletic participation a test of planned behavior t heory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 371 379. Till, B. D., & Nowak, L. I. (2000). Toward effective use of cause related marketing allianc es. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9 (7), 472 484. TOMS.com. (2010). One for one movement. Retrieved August 6, 2011, from http://www.t oms.com/ our movement cise. Journal of Psychology 132 (6), 581 592. Trimble, C. S., & Rifon, N. J. (2006). Consumer perceptions of compatibility in cau se rel ated marketing messages. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11 (1), 27 47. Turco, D. M. (1995). The influence of sponsorship on product recall and image among s port spectators. World Marketing Congress Proceedings, 7 ( 3), 11.6 11.10. Van den Putte, B. (1991). 20 years of the theory of reasoned action of Fishbein and Ajz en: A meta analysis. Unpublished manuscript University of Amsterdam. Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause related Marketing: A co alignment of mar keting strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52 58 74. Vaughn, R. (1980). How advertising works: A planning model. Journal of Advertising Re search, 20 (5), 27 34. Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2007). Sustainable f ood consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecol ogical Economics, 1 12.

PAGE 155

155 Vincent, P. C., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1998). A longitudinal application of the theory of reasoned acti Journal of Applied Social Psycholo gy 28 (9), 761 778. Warburton, J., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Volunteer decision making by older people: A test of a revised theory of planned behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 24 5 257. Webb, D. J. & Mohr, L. A. (1998). Cause related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52 58 74. 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 Mark eting, 17 (2), 26 38. Webb, D. J., Mohr, L. A., & Harris, K. E. (2008). A re examination of socially responsible consumption and its measurement. Journal of Business Researc h, 61 91 98. Webster, F. E. J.(1975). Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consu mer. Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (3), 188 196. Welsh, J. (1999). Good cause, good business. Harvard Business Review, 21 (Septemb er/ October), 24. White, K. M., Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A. (1994). Sager sex behavior: The role of attitudes norms, and control factors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 2164 2192. Witcher, B. J., Craigen, G., Culligan, D., & Harvey, A. (1991). The links between objectiv es and function in organizational sponsorship. International Journal of Advertising, 10 (1), 13 21. Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited Academy of Management Review 16: 691 718. Wymer, W., & Samu, S. (2009). The influen ce of cause marketing associations on prod uct and cause brand value. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector M arketing 14 (1), 1 20. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research 12 341 352. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, Revision, a nd Application to Advertising. Journal of Advertising 23 (4), 59 70. Zimbardo, P. (1960). Involvement and communication discrepancy as determinants of o pinion conformity Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 60 86 94.

PAGE 156

156 Zuckerman, M., & Reis, H. T. (1978). Comparison of three models for predicting altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 498 510.

PAGE 157

157 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jaejin Lee received her Ph.D. in mass communication with an emphasis in advertising from the College of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida in the spring of 2013 Before joining the Ph.D. program. she has worked as an assistan t manager at Samsung Electronics, South Korea. Jaejin's current research interests include consumer behavior, branding, cause marketing, social marketing, and the uses of new media and online communities in marketing and health related communications. Her work has appeared in scholarly journals such as The Web Journal of Mass Communication Research Asian Journal of Women's Studies, and has several articles are currently under review. She has presented her research at various referred conferences including those of the American Academy of Advertising (AAA), the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC), and the International Communication Association (ICA) among others. She received her master's degree in advertising from the C ollege of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida in 2009. She received her Bachelor of Arts with child and family studies, business administrations, and English literature and language from Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Ko rea, in 2003. Since fall 2012, she serve s as an assistant professor in the School of Communication at the Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida.