Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274256011
DeterminantsofConsumerAttributionsofCorporateSocialResponsibility
ArticleinJournalofBusinessEthics·February2015
DOI:10.1007/s10551-015-2578-4
CITATIONS
12
READS
981
3authors:
Someoftheauthorsofthispublicationarealsoworkingontheserelatedprojects:
DynamicPricingandEcommerceViewproject
CSRandCompetitivenessViewproject
LonginosMarínRives
UniversityofMurcia
26PUBLICATIONS531CITATIONS
SEEPROFILE
PedroJesúsCuestasDíaz
UniversityofMurcia
18PUBLICATIONS260CITATIONS
SEEPROFILE
SergioRomán
UniversityofMurcia
56PUBLICATIONS945CITATIONS
SEEPROFILE
AllcontentfollowingthispagewasuploadedbySergioRománon31March2015.
Theuserhasrequestedenhancementofthedownloadedfile.
Determinants of Consumer Attributions of Corporate SocialResponsibility
Longinos Marın • Pedro J. Cuestas •
Sergio Roman
Received: 3 October 2012 / Accepted: 13 February 2015
� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract Prior research has found attributions to mediate
the relationship between the elements of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) activities and consumer responses to
firms; however, the question of what variables determine
consumer attributions of CSR remains partially unaddressed.
This article analyzes why consumers make attributions of
CSR that are either positive (values-driven or strategic
motives), or negative (stakeholder-driven or egoistic mo-
tives). The results obtained from two empirical studies
(n = 197, n = 222) indicate that company–cause fit, cor-
porate ability, and interpersonal trust have a positive influ-
ence on the motives that consumers attribute to CSR,
whereas corporate hypocrisy has a negative effect. This re-
search contributes to our understanding of the psychological
mechanisms underlying impactful consumer judgments and
provides guidance for organizations in responding to such
evaluations.
Keywords CSR � Consumer behavior � Attributions �Ethics
Introduction
Currently, companies are undertaking many social initiatives,
which usually entail allocating company resources to social
purposes. A growing interest in corporate social responsibility
(CSR) is apparent in both practice and research when dis-
cussing how business corporations integrate social demands
into their operations to boost stakeholders. The positive link
between CSR and consumer patronage has made managers
realize that CSR is not only an ideological imperative but also
an economic imperative in today’s marketplace (Bhattacharya
and Sen 2004; Jia and Zhang 2014).
Past research has demonstrated that socially responsible
actions enhance corporate reputation and image (Hur et al.
2014; Saeidi et al. 2015; Turban and Greening 1997). CSR
activity can, however, backfire on a company if consumers
become suspicious and infer that the company’s true mo-
tive for CSR activity is merely to sell more products rather
than acting on behalf of its consumers (Cui et al. 2003;
Yoon et al. 2006). CSR activity can also backfire if it is
perceived as distracting a company from its ability to
produce quality products (Brown and Dacin 1997). In re-
cent decades, for example, consumers have learned about
the pitfalls of greenwashing, as many environmental claims
of green products are neither true nor transparent in the
market (Nyilasy et al. 2014). One way of considering how
consumers view a company’s CSR activities is through
attribution theory. This theory provides a well-developed
approach for describing how people make causal infer-
ences about a company’s behavior (Folkes 1984). Attri-
bution is a cognitive process in which people indicate a
cause or explain a certain event (Kelly 1973). Research has
suggested that certain attributions can directly influence
consumers’ behavioral intentions and attitudes.
Purchase intent (Ellen et al. 2006), repeat patronage
(Vlachos et al. 2009), and recommendation intentions
(Walker et al. 2010), for example, have all been sig-
nificantly influenced by the motives that consumers assign
to CSR initiatives. Combining insights from management
L. Marın (&) � P. J. Cuestas � S. Roman
Facultad Economıa y Empresa, Universidad de Murcia,
Murcia, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]
P. J. Cuestas
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Roman
e-mail: [email protected]
123
J Bus Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2578-4
and business ethics research, Swanson (1995) proposes
three principal motivations for companies to engage in
CSR: economic, positive duty, and negative duty.
The different motivations in consumer responses to CSR
actions have also been analyzed (e.g., Becker-Olsen et al.
2006; Sen et al. 2006; Ellen et al. 2006). However, the issue of
the ‘‘conditions [under which] consumers may perceive a CSR
action as self-interested’’ remains partially unaddressed (Gao
2009, p. 270), and the question of how consumers attribute the
motivation for a firm’s CSR activity has received little at-
tention (Yoon et al. 2006). Yet, it would be relevant to aca-
demics and marketers to understand the effects of CSR
initiatives on consumers’ attributions of CSR and therefore to
understand their attitudes and behaviors. Consumers support
companies of which they have positive CSR perceptions (or
beliefs); for instance, the results of the 2013 CSR RepTrak 100
study show that 73 % of the 55,000 consumers surveyed were
willing to recommend companies perceived to be delivering
on CSR. Thus, the key antecedents of CSR attributions appear
to be an important area of research because they provide a
better understanding of the psychological mechanisms un-
derlying these impactful consumer judgments and provide
guidance for organizations on how to respond to them.
We propose a framework that analyzes the effect of
company–cause fit, corporate ability, corporate hypocrisy,
and interpersonal trust on consumer attributions of CSR. We
follow Ellen et al.’s (2006) typology of attributions as posi-
tive—values-driven and strategic—or negative—stakehold-
er-driven and egoistic—motives. We predict that company–
cause fit, corporate ability, and interpersonal trust will have
positive effects on consumer attributions of CSR (values-
driven and strategic motives). In the case of corporate
hypocrisy, we expect a positive effect on negative consumer
attributions (egoistic and stakeholder-driven motives).
The structure of this article is as follows. First, we present
a review of the literature on CSR and attribution theory and
propose hypotheses relating to the variables of the study
(company–cause fit, corporate ability, corporate hypocrisy,
and interpersonal trust). Second, we test the model via two
experiments: in Study 1, we use a 2 (high/low company–
cause fit) 9 2 (high/low corporate ability) experimental
design, and in Study 2, we use a 2 (high/low interpersonal
trust) 9 2 (high/low corporate hypocrisy) experimental de-
sign. Finally, the implications of the findings are discussed,
and avenues for further research are suggested.
Determinants of Consumers’ Csr Attributions
CSR
CSR plays an important role in corporate outcomes, in-
cluding reputation, corporate and brand evaluations,
purchase intentions, and customer identification with a
company (e.g., Brown and Dacin 1997; Gurhan-Canli and
Batra 2004; Lichtenstein et al. 2004; Mohr and Webb
2005; Saeidi et al. 2015). CSR can assume many forms,
such as philanthropy, cause-related marketing, environ-
mental responsibility, and humane employee treatment.
Regardless of the form that they take, CSR efforts are
generally intended to portray an image of a company as
responsive to the needs of the society on which it depends
for survival.
One of the most fundamental findings of previous CSR
research is that an organization’s stakeholders (e.g., em-
ployees, customers, investors, and the public) will reward
companies that are deeply engaged in CSR causes in dif-
ferent ways (Sen et al. 2006). Customers represent a sig-
nificant stakeholder group whose responses to CSR have
attracted much academic attention. In general, consumers
applaud altruistic corporate behaviors that are beneficial for
all of society in the long term rather than merely benefitting
the organization itself, and they tend to reward those efforts
(Marin et al. 2009). However, research has also shown that
CSR may cause negative reactions in consumer behavior,
such as skepticism or lower purchase intentions in some
scenarios (Sen and Bhattacharya 2001; Wagner et al.
2009). In this sense, Carrigan and Atalla (2001) highlight
the phenomenon of consumers punishing companies’
unethical behavior; however, although consumers may be
willing to punish unethical firm behavior, they might be
less willing to reward ethical behavior, especially if such
behavior entails greater costs. Wagner et al. (2009) analyze
the effects of the communications strategies that firms can
use to mitigate the effects of inconsistencies with respect to
consumer perceptions of corporate hypocrisy as well as
corporate beliefs and associations regarding a firm’s social
responsibility and attitudes toward the firm. Their findings
reveal that perceived hypocrisy damages consumers’ atti-
tudes toward firms by negatively affecting CSR beliefs.
CSR Attributions
Consumers’ perceptions of the motives of companies to
engage in CSR also play an essential role in their responses
to CSR (Ellen et al. 2006). Attribution theory proposes that
individuals aim to predict and control what occurs around
them (Heider 1958). In a climate of limited trust, all deeds
may be heavily scrutinized, thus yielding more complex
assessments of motives. When expectations are not met,
people ‘‘give much thought to ‘why questions’’ (Fein 1996,
p. 165) and generate more sophisticated attributions. Be-
cause consumers show little confidence and trust in busi-
nesses, CSR efforts to demonstrate ‘‘good citizenship’’
might promote such attention. While many suggest that
inconsistency or duality is difficult for consumers to
L. Marın et al.
123
reconcile, Williams and Aaker (2002) argue that when
consumers are presented with persuasive communications,
they are capable of accepting and synthesizing apparently
contradictory information when making judgments rather
than relying on more simplistic, bipolar views. These au-
thors report that positive and negative emotional reactions
co-occur when individuals are exposed to ads with mixed
emotional appeals.
Corporate motives of CSR have been discussed as a major
variable explaining consumers’ reactions to CSR (Forehand
and Grier 2003; Menon and Kahn 2003; Sen et al. 2006;
Webb and Mohr 1998). Combining insights from the re-
search on management and business ethics, Swanson (1995)
proposes three principal motivations for companies to engage
in CSR: economic, positive duty, and negative duty. Eco-
nomic motives usually focus on management researchers and
incorporate a firm’s performance objectives, such as sales,
profit, and return on investment. The duty-aligned perspec-
tives are usually adopted by ethical researchers, and these
perspectives focus on corporate moral behaviors and the
associated obligations to society. Positive duty recognizes
that a company may be involved in CSR to help others,
whereas negative duty holds that a company’s motivation
may be an exercise in restraint to meet stakeholder expec-
tations. Maignan and Ralston (2002) identify motives similar
to those highlighted by Swanson (1995) in their review of
companies’ self-presentation on web reports, renaming them
as performance-driven, values-driven, and stakeholder-dri-
ven, respectively. Becker-Olsen et al. (2006) also study the
various motivations of consumer responses to CSR actions.
When motivations are considered firm serving or profit re-
lated, attitudes toward organizations are likely to be negative;
however, when motivations are considered socially moti-
vated or society/community focused, attitudes toward such
organizations are likely to be enhanced. We follow the
classification of companies’ motivations proposed by Ellen
et al. (2006), who identify four different motivations: (1)
egoistic motives related to exploiting the cause rather than
helping it, (2) strategic motives that support the attainment of
business goals (e.g., increased market share, creating positive
impressions) while benefiting the cause, (3) stakeholder-
driven motives related to supporting social causes solely
because of pressure from stakeholders, and (4) values-driven
motives related to benevolence-motivated giving. Ellen et al.
(2006) divide these driving motives into two groups, de-
pending on their effect on consumers’ purchase intentions.
There are two positive motives: values-driven and strategic;
and two negative motives: egoistic and stakeholder-driven.
In terms of positive motives in the attribution process of
consumers’ reactions to CSR actions, consumers are likely
to accept attributions of values-driven motives because they
consider firms to be acting with sincere and benevolent in-
tentions (Vlachos et al. 2009). Likewise, consumers believe
that firms design CSR actions because they care and tend to
view CSR activities as deriving from a company’s moral
behavior. Values-driven motives affect consumers’ recom-
mendation intentions; they are sufficient motivation for
consumers to speak positively of a company.
The Proposed Framework
To create a clear and parsimonious framework, we propose
the integration of these different factors into one model
(shown in Fig. 1). Following similar procedures for
proposing a model in the company–consumer context (Sheth
and Parvatiyar 1995), motives that induce positive consumer
interpretations of CSR could be derived from company be-
havior (corporate ability or company–cause fit), the indi-
vidual (interpersonal trust), or the context (corporate
hypocrisy). We expect that individuals make positive attri-
butions (values-driven or strategic) about CSR when a
company has expertise and tradition, when the fit between
CSR cause and the activity of the company is high, and
when the consumer is an individual with a high level of
interpersonal trust (i.e., is not suspicious of the intentions of
other people or companies). Moreover, individuals will
make negative attributions (egoistic or stakeholder-driven)
when they perceive hypocrisy in a company’s behavior.
Marketers need to understand how these variables affect
consumers’ attributions of CSR activities and initiatives as
well as the variables affecting their responses and may wish
to adapt their CSR strategies if our findings suggest changes
in their activities and CSR actions. Understanding how cor-
porate associations influence consumer product responses
would increase marketers’ ability to manage crucial deci-
sions, such as determining which types of associations to
emphasize in the introduction and positioning of new prod-
ucts (Brown and Dacin 1997).
Fig. 1 Framework of consumer attributions of CSR
Determinants of Consumer Attributions of CSR
123
Development of Hypotheses
Company–Cause Fit
Simmons and Becker-Olsen (2004) define the fit between a
cause and a brand as strong when the two are perceived as
congruent, where congruity is derived from the mission,
products, markets, technologies, brand concepts, or other
key associations. Thus, fit is the adaptation of CSR ac-
tivities with respect to the principal activity of a company.
The issue of company–cause fit has been widely discussed
in the literature on consumer reactions to cause-related
marketing (e.g., Barone et al. 2007; Hoeffler and Keller
2002; Ellen et al. 2006). For instance, Barone et al. (2007)
show that the effects of retailer–cause fit are moderated by
consumer perceptions of the retailer’s motive for engaging
in cause-related marketing and by the affinity that con-
sumers feel toward the social cause component of the
campaign. Drawing from the brand extension literature,
company–cause fit is positively related to evaluations of a
firm’s brand (Pracejus and Olsen 2004), to the evaluation
of cause-related marketing strategies (Boush and Loken
1991) and to the evaluation of the sponsoring company
(Rifon et al. 2004; Zdravkovic et al. 2010).
This stream of research is based on cognitive dissonance
theory (Festinger 1957), which explains that people are
motivated to act in ways that are consistent with their be-
liefs, values, and perceptions when there is a psychological
inconsistency or disagreement between two pieces of in-
formation. This inconsistency produces a dissonance that
leads people to question their beliefs or values and stimu-
lates uncomfortable feelings. Thus, when the company–
cause fit is strong, the company focuses its CSR strategy on
activities and initiatives aligned with its core company
values. In this case, it may be easier for a consumer to
consider the beneficial effects for society. It is also easier to
manage social actions on a level or within an industry that
is known and close to a firm’s everyday working business.
Individuals tend to associate CSR with the mission, vision,
values, and long-term strategy of a company. When the
company–cause fit is low, the relationship between the core
activities of the company is not clear, and individuals may
attribute different explanations to CSR. For example, the
principle behind the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty is to
celebrate the natural physical variations embodied by all
women and to inspire them to have the confidence to be
comfortable with these variations. As part of this cam-
paign, Dove started the Dove Self-Esteem Fund, which
aims to change the Western concept of beauty from ultra-
thin models with ‘‘perfect’’ features to making every girl
(and woman) feel positive about her appearance (www.
dove.com). Consumers are likely to attribute this CSR
initiative to values-driven or strategic motives (rather than
to egoistic or stakeholder-driven motives) in a context of
strong company–cause fit. Based on this reasoning, we
propose the following:
H1 Company–cause fit has a positive effect on positive
(values-driven and strategic) CSR motives.
Corporate Ability
Corporate ability (CA) refers to a company’s expertise in
producing and delivering its output (Brown and Dacin
1997). A company following a CA positioning strategy will
focus on the expertise of its employees; the superiority of
internal research and development; and the resulting
technological innovation, manufacturing expertise, cus-
tomer orientation, and industry leadership, among other
characteristics. Such a strategy serves to build or reinforce
associations related to the company’s products and ser-
vices. Consumers might also learn CA associations from
prior experiences with a company, word-of-mouth com-
munication, or media reports (Brown and Dacin 1997). In
this sense, CA includes not only product quality but also
attributes such as innovativeness and customer orientation.
This information has a positive influence on people’s be-
havioral intentions regarding a company’s products, stocks,
and jobs and moderates the effect of CSR on people’s in-
tentions (Berens et al. 2007).
The marketing literature has also demonstrated that
consumers consider both performance-related corporate
associations and perceived social responsibility when
forming an impression of a company (Winters 1988). In
particular, a reputation based on corporate ability sig-
nificantly influences the overall corporate evaluation
(Brown and Dacin 1997). Moreover, the contribution of
CSR to a company’s attractiveness is much stronger than
the contribution of CA (Marin and Ruiz 2007), perhaps
because of increasing competition in the context of de-
creasing CA-based variation in the marketplace.
However, the average citizen is facing growing diffi-
culty in terms of being able to distinguish between com-
panies that are genuinely dedicated to making a difference
and those that use a green curtain to conceal dark motives
(Munshi and Kurian 2005). Greenwashing, for example,
means that significant money or time has been spent ad-
vertising being green rather than spending resources on
environmentally sound practices.
Past literature has explicitly studied the conditions under
which CSR has a stronger influence on the preferences of
stakeholders (e.g., Backhaus et al. 2002; Garcia de los
Salmones et al. 2005; Orlitzky et al. 2003). The experiment
of Berens et al. (2007) shows that when information on a
company’s CA is personally important to people, such as
when they believe that doing business with a company with
L. Marın et al.
123
poor CA could result in financial loss and when good CSR
is not able to compensate for poor CA. In such a case, CSR
has a significant effect on purchase intentions only when
CA is high, not when CA is low. This finding suggests that
having a good CA is a necessary precondition for positive
consumer responses. Based on this reasoning, we expect
that CSR initiatives by companies with good reputations
and CA will be better understood and will generate positive
reactions from consumers. Thus, we propose the following
hypothesis:
H2 Corporate ability has a positive effect on positive
(values-driven and strategic) CSR motives.
Interpersonal Trust
Interpersonal trust is a psychological state comprising the
intention to accept vulnerability based on the positive ex-
pectations of the intentions or behavior of another person
(Rousseau et al. 1998). Trust refers to an individual’s re-
liance on another party (individual or collective) under
conditions of dependence and risk. Because trust develops
over time (Lewicki and Bunker 1996), the level of trust that
an individual has in an object will differ depending on
when trust is assessed.
According to Bhattacharya et al. (1998), researchers in
different disciplines have viewed trust through various di-
mensions: personality psychologists tend to view trust as an
individual characteristic, whereas social psychologists
generally view it from the perspective of the behavioral
expectations of others involved in transactions. People may
or may not be unsuspecting; people who trust in others are
likely to be trusting in all fields of their lives, whereas
people who are not trusting tend to mistrust all people and
entities in their lives. In an environment of limited trust,
people attempt to examine all of the actions of a person or
entity, thus yielding more complex assessments of motives
(Fein 1996).
In 2006, the General Electric Foundation website an-
nounced a five-year grant of $20 million to Cincinnati
Public Schools (CPS) to improve teaching and learning in
math and science (www.gefoundation.com). Depending on
the personal characteristics of the individuals receiving this
message, some people would have thought that GE was
genuinely a philanthropic and good company, whereas
others might have thought about the true reasons behind the
announcement, such as compensating for damage caused in
Cincinnati or favoring the public interests of the governors
of Cincinnati.
Consumers with a high level of interpersonal trust will
tend to believe the propositions and offers made by com-
panies through advertising, messages, or projects. Con-
sumers whose trust is high are more likely to associate CSR
with value-driven and strategic motives. However, if an
individual has low interpersonal trust in a company, then
all of that company’s actions and communications will be
treated with suspicion. Hence, the motives inferred about,
or behind, the actions could range from selling products
and attracting investments to lobbying local governors, for
example. Considering this reasoning, we propose one effect
of trust on positive attributions and one additional and
negative effect on negative CSR attributions:
H3a Interpersonal trust has a positive effect on positive
(values-driven and strategic) CSR motives.
H3b Interpersonal trust has a negative effect on negative
(egoistic and stakeholder-driven) CSR motives.
Corporate Hypocrisy
Consumer knowledge about a company includes con-
sumers’ perceptions and beliefs about relevant company
characteristics (e.g., values, climate) as well as their reac-
tions to the company, including emotions and evaluations
(Bhattacharya and Sen 2003). Research on social cognition
and memory has established that people actively organize
their perceptions of other persons in their memories using
abstract trait categories (Srull and Wyer 1979); such ab-
stract categories may also be used to classify corporate
associations. Similar to perceptions of persons, these
categories may correspond to different personality traits
(Srull and Wyer 1979).
We follow Wagner et al.’s (2009) work in defining
corporate hypocrisy as the belief that a firm claims to be
something that it is not. In this sense, corporate hypocrisy
refers to an individual’s assessment of a company based on
certain information, experience, or other stimuli. As CSR is
related to transparency, accountability, and active compli-
ance, consumers who perceive a company as hypocritical
will negatively evaluate the company and its CSR
practices.
Relative to other forms of corporate communications
and tactics, CSR messages are more likely to be viewed
with suspicion by consumers (Barone et al. 2007). Re-
search suggests that consumer inferences about the intent
underlying a company’s use of CSR can result in percep-
tions that the company’s efforts are either cause-beneficial
or cause-exploitative (cf. Drumwright 1996). In the latter
instance, suspicion surrounding the company’s decision to
employ CSR campaigns can prompt consumers to question
how genuine or sincere the company’s efforts are with
respect to helping the cause (Fein et al. 1990).
In a context of public suspicion and distrust in which
discrepancies between CSR talk and action are regarded as
sources of hypocrisy and potential threats to organizational
credibility and legitimacy, the call for consistency seems to
Determinants of Consumer Attributions of CSR
123
be an appropriate prescription. Wagner et al. (2009) warn
of the negative effect resulting from consumer perceptions
of corporate hypocrisy. Their research suggests that when
CSR communications precede revelations of a company’s
violation of CSR principles, the negative effect is even
stronger than the effect of a more reactive company CSR
strategy. Christensen et al. (2013) suggest that differences
between talk and action may be essential dimensions of
ongoing organizational CSR engagement.
In conclusion, when a corporation behaves in a manner
that is perceived as socially responsible, consumers are
likely to infer that the company has certain desirable traits
that resonate with their sense of self (Lichtenstein et al.
2004). These organizations seek to reinforce their le-
gitimacy and to embody qualities that they believe are
particularly valued by stakeholders. In these situations,
consumers will attribute this information to values or
strategic behaviors (positive attributions). Thus, organiza-
tions, like people, may be perceived as demonstrating
hypocrisy in the presence of inconsistent information re-
garding their own statements and observed behaviors
(negative attributions). Based on this reasoning, we pro-
pose the following:
H4 Corporate hypocrisy has a positive effect on negative
(egoistic and stakeholder-driven) CSR motives.
Methodology
The model is tested in the context of a computer service
company through two studies; the samples included 197
(study 1) and 222 (study 2) undergraduate students, re-
spectively, from one university in Spain. Fictitious ads for
a new branch of a computer and technological company
were created to yield the manipulations. In both studies, all
participants were asked to imagine that ‘‘Your PC Store’’
had recently opened a location that was as convenient for
them as their current store and offered the same quality,
price, and service. Claims were made about high quality,
low prices, and modern, convenient locations in the four
treatment ads.
Study 1
Design and Procedure
Study 1 was a 2 (high/low company–cause fit) 9 2 (high/low
corporate ability) between-subjects field experiment. Each
participant was asked to read a scenario and was shown a
randomly assigned fictitious ad (shown in Box 1 in the ap-
pendix). Preliminary versions of the questionnaire were ad-
ministered to a convenience sample of 18 individuals, and
pretest1 results were used to improve the measures and de-
sign an appropriate structure for the questionnaire. To
minimize product or quality differences, the first pretest
indicated that ‘‘Your PC Store’’ met the criteria of providing
a frequently purchased product that is a necessity for most
consumers and operating in a parity market. We made a
second pretest with 34 individuals and two causes were se-
lected from eight causes that were described as important to
most of the people who were asked. ‘‘Your PC Store’’ was
perceived to fit best with a cause that provided for ‘‘donating
second-hand computers to an orphanage in our community’’
(M = 5.42) and was perceived as a low fit for a cause
seeking to ‘‘donate money to save the Iberian lynx’’2
(M = 3.99); the t test was significant (t = 3.57). High CA
was stated as follows: ‘‘They care about their products’
quality, and they have the skills to commercialize their
products, thus obtaining better consumer satisfaction than
their competitors. In short, it has an excellent price-quality
relationship and a complete service’’ (M = 7.37). Low CA
was represented as follows: ‘‘They do not obtain optimal
market results through commercializing their products,
although they do have an advantage over their competitors.
In short, they have a bad price-quality relationship and poor
service’’ (M = 6.65); the t-test was significant (t = 2.67).
Therefore, manipulation checks confirmed the effectiveness
of the fit and corporate ability manipulations.
Measures
We measured values-driven, strategic, egoistic, and stake-
holder-driven attributions with a scale from Ellen et al.
(2006). To assess company–cause fit, one item from Sen-
gupta et al. (1997) was used. To measure CA, we used
Berens et al.’s (2007) scale. All items were measured using
a 10-point Likert scale (see Table 3 in the appendix).
Reliability was tested by examining the Cronbach’s al-
pha coefficients. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were
found to range from 0.86 (values-driven) to 0.71 (egoist
attribution) and thus exceeded Nunnally’s (1978) threshold
value (see Table 4 in the appendix). Following the proce-
dures suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981), convergent
and discriminant validity was tested using confirmatory
factor analysis. A comparison of the average variance ex-
tracted by each construct to the shared variance between
the construct and all other variables was used to test for
discriminant validity. For each comparison, the explained
variance exceeded all combinations of shared variance. As
a result, the scales showed acceptable discriminant validity.
1 The questionnaire pretest showed that it was easier for the
respondents to position themselves on a 0–10 scale than on a 1–7
scale.2 The Iberian lynx is emblematic of endangered species in Spain.
L. Marın et al.
123
Convergent validity was assessed by verifying the sig-
nificance of the t values associated with the parameter es-
timates. All t values were positive and significant
(p \ 0.01). As a result, the scales showed acceptable
convergent validity.
Study 1 Results and Discussion
A series of multiple regression analyses was performed to
determine whether the propositions developed in this study
received empirical support. The main results of the regres-
sion models used to test H1 and H2 are shown in Table 1.
Regarding company–cause fit (H1), our results reveal a
positive relationship with values-driven motives (ß = 0.32,
t = 5.20); however, contrary to expectations, we found no
positive relationship with strategic motives (ß = -0.05,
t = -0.71). Regarding CA, the results show a positive re-
lationship with value-driven motives (ß = 0.36, t = 5.82)
and with strategic motives (ß = 0.25, t = 3.54); thus con-
firming H2.
To test the potential interaction effect between the in-
dependent variables (fit and corporate ability), we per-
formed a series of hierarchical moderated regression
analysis in two steps with two models (Bell et al. 2004).
Model 1 tested the dependent variable hypothesized main
effects, and Model 2 included the main effects plus the
interaction between the independent variables. We mean-
centered all the main effects variables to minimize the
threat of multicollinearity in equations that included in-
teraction terms (Aiken and West 1991). All of the results
indicate that the interaction effect was non-significant;
therefore, our proposed models were validated against the
interaction effects between the independent variables.
Regarding the effect of cause fit, extant research also
shows that CSR has a positive effect on consumers’ pur-
chase intentions only when consumers are interested in and
supportive of the CSR activity. This idea complements the
research on social communication as well as Drumwright’s
(1996) findings of a positive relationship between the affi-
nity or attitudes held by key constituents toward the cause
and the perceived likelihood of the campaign’s success. Our
results reinforce the findings of Lafferty et al. (2004), as the
perception of fit between the brand and associated stimuli
(i.e., social cause) is one of the main antecedents of the
persuasive capacity of company communications.
Another reason for positive consumer attributions is that
CSR communications indicate the company has a high CA.
While Berens et al. (2005, p. 233) conclude that ‘‘For
product preferences, a poor CA could not be compensated
by a good CSR, at least when people thought that CA is
personally relevant to them’’, our findings contribute to
explaining this trade-off.
We provide further empirical evidence to the idea out-
lined by Lai et al. (2010), who propose that corporate
reputation is a mediator in the relationship between CSR
and brand performance; that is, performance gain is a
necessary prerequisite to attaining an adequate reputation.
Overall, this evidence suggests that consumers find it dif-
ficult to believe in CSR communications from companies
with low CA.
The contribution of the study regarding the combination
of these two antecedents, fit and CA, confirms findings
from Bigne et al. (2010). More specifically, if consumers
perceive that a company has skill and experience in pro-
ducing a certain category of product and if this product
category is functionally compatible with the aims of the
social cause, then the company appears more competent in
the context of its partnership with this cause.
Study 2
Design and Procedure
In the second study, we used the same fictitious ads as
those used in Study 1, but in this case, the ads were created
to yield a 2 (high/low interpersonal trust) 9 2 (high/low
corporate hypocrisy) between-subjects field experiment in
which we manipulated interpersonal trust and corporate
hypocrisy. Consistent with previous social psychology re-
search, we manipulated interpersonal trust and corporate
Table 1 Multiple linear regression analysis (study 1)
Dependent variables Values-driven attribution Strategic attribution Egoistic attribution Stakeholder-driven attribution
ß t value ß t value ß t value ß t value
Main effects
Company–Cause Fit 0.32 5.20*** -0.05 -0.71n.s. -0.15 -2.05** 0.23 3.26***
Corporate Ability 0.36 5.82*** 0.25 3.54*** 0.00 0.05n.s. 0.09 1.20n.s.
R2 0.296 0.060 0.030 0.073
F 40.77*** 6.15*** 3.23** 7.68***
n.s. not significant
* p \ 0.10; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01
Determinants of Consumer Attributions of CSR
123
hypocrisy following the manipulation of the former inde-
pendent variable by Dirks (1999). Each participant was
asked to read a scenario and was shown a randomly as-
signed fictitious ad with the new paragraph containing
these manipulations (Box 1 in appendix). We used the ad
with high fit and high CA. This included a final paragraph
with the manipulations of interpersonal trust and corporate
hypocrisy. Regarding the manipulation of the first variable,
the condition of high interpersonal trust was manipulated in
the following sentences: ‘‘A recent study published by
Corporate Press indicates that consumers believe that
people are reliable and will not take advantage of you. In
fact, entrusted people will do well in life because they trust
them’’ (M = 2.61). The condition of low trust condition
was manipulated using the following sentences: ‘‘A recent
study published by Corporate Press indicates that con-
sumers believe that people are unreliable and will take
advantage of you. In fact, entrusted people will not do well
in life because they are cheated’’ (M = 2.55); the t-test was
not significant. High corporate hypocrisy was manipulated
using the following passage: ‘‘Furthermore, ‘Your PC
Store’ has recently appeared in a news release in the local
press, which reveals that ‘Your PC Store’ wasn’t honestly
involved in corporate social responsibility activities and
that the store portrays an unrealistic image. In short, ‘Your
PC Store’ does CSR activities to look good but does not
actually do what it says’’ (M = 4.11). By contrast, low
corporate hypocrisy was indicated by the following pas-
sage: ‘‘Furthermore, ‘Your PC Store’ has recently appeared
in a news release in the local press, which reveals that
‘‘Your PC Store’’ is truly involved in corporate social re-
sponsibility activities and that the image shown is real. In
short, ‘Your PC Store’ sincerely engages in CSR and ac-
tually does what it says it does’’ (M = 2.9); the t test was
significant (t = 5.53).
Measures
We measured value-driven, strategic, egoistic, and stake-
holder-driven attributions with the same scale used in
Study 1, drawn from Ellen et al. (2006). CSR hypocrisy
was measured with five items from Wagner et al.’s (2009)
scale (see Table 3 in the appendix). Interpersonal trust was
measured using a scale from Tokuda et al. (2008).
Following the same procedure used in Study 1, re-
liability was measured by examining Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were found
to range from 0.86 (value-driven and strategic) to 0.72
(corporate hypocrisy) and thus exceeded Nunnally’s (1978)
threshold value (see Table 5 in the appendix). To verify
convergent and discriminant validity, we performed the
procedure of Fornell and Larcker (1981), as explained in
Study 1. The results indicate that the scales showed ac-
ceptable discriminant and convergent validity.
Study 2 Results and Discussion
Similar to Study 1, a series of multiple regression analyses
were performed to determine whether the propositions de-
veloped in this study received empirical support. In this
section, we present the main results of the regression models
used to test H3a, H3b, and H4 (Table 2). Regarding inter-
personal trust (H3a, H3b), our results show a positive rela-
tionship with value-driven motives (ß = 0.32, t = 5.30);
this finding confirms the proposed relationship in H3a.
Contrary to expectations, we found no positive relationship
with strategic motives (ß = -0.05, t = -0.78). In the case
of the negative relationship between interpersonal trust and
the negative motives proposed in H3b, we found a non-
significant relationship with egoistic attribution (ß = 0.04,
t = 0.61) and a positive relationship with stakeholder-driven
attribution (ß = 0.30, t = 4.70), thus rejecting H3b.
Regarding corporate hypocrisy, our results show a
positive relationship with egoistic motives (ß = 0.36,
t = 5.67) and stakeholder-driven motives (ß = 0.14,
t = 1.98); which confirm H4.
In this case, we also test (Table 2) the potential inter-
action effect between the independent variables (interper-
sonal trust and hypocrisy) following the same procedure as
that used in Study 1. All of the results indicate that the
Table 2 Multiple linear regression analysis (study 2)
Dependent variables Values-driven attribution Strategic attribution Egoistic attribution Stakeholder-driven attribution
ß t value ß t value ß t value ß t value
Main effects
Interpersonal trust 0.323 5.30*** -0.05 0.78n.s. 0.04 0.61n.s. 0.30 4.70***
Corporate hypocrisy -0.36 -5.97** -0.39 -6.29*** 0.36 5.67*** 0.14 1.98**
R2 0.20 0.153 0.135 0.117
F 27.88*** 19.81*** 17.153*** 14.47***
n.s. not significant
* p \ 0.10; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01
L. Marın et al.
123
interaction effect was non-significant; therefore, our pro-
posed models were validated against the interaction effects
of the independent variables.
Our research contributes to the literature on CSR and
attribution theory by demonstrating a use of corporate
hypocrisy that has not previously been explored. Previous
research suggests that hypocrisy mediates the effect of the
presentation order of inconsistent CSR information on the
attitudes toward a firm (Wagner et al. 2009). We add that
corporate hypocrisy contributes to consumers’ egoistic and
stakeholder attributions. Organizations, like people, may be
perceived as demonstrating hypocrisy when inconsistent
information about their own statements and observed be-
haviors emerges. Consumers build on their perceptions of
the distinct characteristics exhibited by a person (or an or-
ganization), such as hypocrisy, to form broader evaluations
or assessments (Anderson 1971). Thus, following the results
of Study 2, consumers infer that companies conduct CSR
solely to gain benefits, such as to sell more products, to
improve their image, and to reinforce their employees’
identification with the company. This result is consistent
with the contention that the proliferation of ethical and green
claims by companies, some of which appear in the ‘‘sin
industries’’ category, has contributed to growing consumer
skepticism of such CSR communications and greenwashing
(Jahdi and Acikdilli 2009). Our research stemmed from the
idea that companies should care about CSR communica-
tions. Specifically, we addressed the question of key vari-
ables that should be managed to encourage positive
attributions of CSR communications by consumers.
Our research extends extant research on the benefits of
interpersonal trust on group performance (Dirks 1999), ex-
change performance (Zaheer et al. 1998), and consumer–
company identification (Bhattacharya and Sen 2003). Con-
sumers who are naturally skeptical of company CSR ini-
tiatives and believe them to be profit motivated (Trimble and
Rifon 2006) seek cues to legitimate the firm’s socially re-
sponsible intentions (Forehand and Grier 2003). This idea
reinforces the positive effect of company credibility in the
market. Trust refers to an individual’s reliance on a com-
pany under conditions of dependence and risk; therefore, as
company credibility and reliance increase, there is a greater
probability of attributing the company’s CSR initiatives to
value-driven motives. The results obtained by Bigne et al.
(2010) indicate that company’s trustworthiness or sincerity
represents a key indicator for consumer judgments about
whether a company is credible in its social responsibility
intentions. When consumers perceive a company as trust-
worthy in its association with a social cause, they may
identify with the company and more positively evaluate it.
In this sense, according to Du et al. (2010), firm-serving
motives in a company’s CSR message will actually enhance
the credibility of its CSR communications and inhibit
stakeholder skepticism, which underlies the potential
boomerang effect of CSR communication. Thus, companies
should frankly acknowledge that their CSR endeavors are
beneficial to both society and themselves.
Contrary to expectations, our results show that interper-
sonal trust has a positive effect on stakeholder-driven attri-
butions. Consumers may consider a company to have a
strong stakeholder orientation and thus to use CSR to achieve
stakeholder-related objectives. Consumers may think that a
high-level stakeholder orientation helps the organization to
ensure that the stakeholders will continue to provide the
necessary organizational resources. This view relates to the
concept of legitimacy, which is a generalized perception or
assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper,
or appropriate within some socially constructed system of
norms, values, beliefs, and definitions (Suchman 1995).
Conclusions, Limitations, and Further Research
This research analyzes how several key variables drive
consumer attribution motives. Understanding how the dif-
ferent elements in the structure of CSR affect consumer
processing and response is important for academics, prac-
titioners, and policymakers. The main contribution is the
integration of several variables—corporate ability, com-
pany–cause fit, interpersonal trust, and corporate hypoc-
risy—into a framework and the analysis of their effect on
positive (value-driven and strategic) and negative (egoistic
and stakeholder-driven) consumer CSR motives.
Consumers make positive attributions (value-driven and
strategic) of CSR when there is a strong fit between the
company and the social cause and when the company
shows high CA. Moreover, CSR is perceived positively by
individuals with a high level of interpersonal trust; such
individuals usually trust (are not suspicious of) other peo-
ple and companies. However, consumers attribute CSR to
egoistic and stakeholder-driven motives when they per-
ceive hypocrisy.
Consumers do not always view company behavior
positively in relation to CSR; in this situation, they may
attribute this behavior to motives such as self-interest, op-
portunism, and selling strategies. Consumers who make
negative attributions about CSR activity (i.e., that the CSR is
serving corporate self-interest) will not respond positively to
the corporate image and products. In some cases, such
consumers may even respond negatively. It should be noted
that communicating CSR to consumers is not always
straightforward. For example, the promotion of CSR ac-
tivities as opportunities to save money (i.e., self-oriented
value) can be less effective than using a combination of
appeals. Allen (1982) finds that a self-oriented appeal in
conservation contexts is actually less successful than a
Determinants of Consumer Attributions of CSR
123
message that appeals to normative duties (i.e., a combination
of functional and social values).
Following Ellen et al.’s (2006) schema of attributions, our
research contributes to CSR attribution research by clarifying
the antecedents of attributions of CSR actions. Previous re-
search has suggested that certain attributions can directly
influence consumers’ behavioral intentions and attitudes. For
example, both purchase or recommendation intentions (Ellen
et al. 2006) are significantly influenced by the motives that
consumers assign to a CSR initiative. Most consumers
ascribe mixed motives to corporate engagement in CSR and
view companies in a positive light when they credit CSR-
related efforts to a combination of values and strategic at-
tributions (Ellen et al. 2006; Vlachos et al. 2009). In addition
to its contributions to marketing theory, this research pro-
vides important implications for marketing managers, who
face competing demands for resources dedicated to CSR
initiatives. By linking CSR activities with increased cus-
tomer value or by developing new sources of customer value,
companies gain competitive advantages and competitive-
ness. Thus, managers need to understand how CSR activities
can affect their customers’ overall perceptions of value from
the firm by attributing a positive motive to CSR initiatives. It
is necessary to select causes that the company knows and can
manage and resolve in the long term. To secure consumers’
trust, marketing communications could provide details about
how a firm’s CSR programs have helped the company to
solve social (and local) problems by emphasizing results and
sustainability rather than merely introducing the form and
input of their CSR activities. CSR initiatives are difficult to
manage and must be implemented carefully to avoid con-
sumer skepticism. Nevertheless, from a managerial per-
spective, the findings presented here should be considered
supportive of companies that have chosen to engage in CSR
as well as companies that are considering doing so.
Our results are tempered by certain limitations, which
provide fertile opportunities for further research. Future
studies should collect data from a greater number of indus-
tries to study the mechanism of consumers’ CSR responses
and the differences in this mechanism among various product
categories. To make the sample more representative, future
research should increase the sample size as well as the pro-
portion of higher income and older participants. Thus, future
studies on the perceptions and consequences of corporate
hypocrisy across various industries would be highly relevant,
particularly from an intercultural perspective.
Another limitation relates to a manipulation check of in-
terpersonal trust. As Johansen et al. (2013, p. 1187) indicate,
interpersonal trust ‘‘is based on early trust-related experiences
… [which] develop into general beliefs about other people
who eventually take the form of a trait or personality char-
acteristic.’’ We manipulated interpersonal trust by giving
consumers one piece of information that was aggregated with
early experiences; however, as Bilsky and Schwartz (1994)
indicate, personality traits are affected by personal values
(which are more durable and stable over time), previous ex-
periences, and current experiences. Therefore, a new experi-
ence (the manipulation of trust) can affect the interpersonal
trust trait, but it is quite difficult to modify a personality trait,
such as interpersonal trust. Moreover, beyond interpersonal
trust, an array of potentially influential consumer personality
traits remains to be studied. For example, a need for cognition
(Cacioppo and Petty 1982) could induce an individual to
search for additional information beyond simple CSR-related
messages from the media. Another interesting personality trait
to analyze would be social identity complexity (Roccas and
Brewer 2002); that is, individuals with high social identity
complexity may be able to better understand CSR because
they have a better understanding of the possible (in)com-
patibility of economic and social or environmental goals.
Although the underlying experimental approach provides
crucial first insights into the effects of CSR information, the
external validity of the suggested dynamics of the variables
could be strengthened by follow-up field research. The sce-
narios investigated here do not provide an exhaustive repre-
sentation of all existing communication patterns that can be
encountered in the marketplace.
Appendix
See Tables 3, 4, and 5
A local chain store specialist in software and hardware opens a new store in a very popular mall, thus becoming one of most important
specialist retailers in hardware nationwide
The 26th ‘‘Your PC Store’’ will soon open in your neighborhood. This store is part of the national ‘‘Your PC Store’’ chain and will be the first
to open in this metropolitan area. According to the company’s press department, the store will employ at least 86 people and will occupy
more than 1,100 square meters
The company was borne from the efforts of two new graduates in 2000, John Holmes and Anthony Stacks. ‘‘Your PC Store’’ is characterized
by the personal relationship between the seller and its customers, good prices, and excellent customer service
In May of 2005, ‘‘Your PC Store’’ initiated its expansion plans for the entire national territory, starting in two major cities. As the two main
stores proved profitable, John and Anthony decided to convert their company into a franchise. Working with the franchise model, the ‘‘Your
PC Company’’ brand can be offered to investors wanting to own a profitable and stable business
Box 1: Experiment with a fictitious ad in a newspaper (high fit and high CA manipulation)
L. Marın et al.
123
Table 3 Items and scales
Scale Items Std. Coeff.
(t value)
[study 1]
Std. Coeff.
(t value)
[study 2]
Fit (Sengupta et al. 1997) The fit of the partnership between the firm and the cause 1 (n.a.)
Corporate ability ‘‘Your PC Store’’ has a lot of expertise in the area of computer
services
0.91 (12.85)
Berens et al. (2007) ‘‘Your PC Store’’ is skilled in what they do 0.74 (10.40)
Corporate hypocrisy ‘‘Your PC store’’ acts hypocritically 0.80 (12.20)
Wagner et al. (2009) What ‘‘Your PC Store’’ says and does are two different things 0.56 (7.54)
‘‘Your PC Store’’ pretends to be something that it is not 0.80 (12.32)
Interpersonal trust Would you say that most people can be trusted? 0.77 (12.25)
Tokuda et al. (2008) Would you say that most people try to be helpful? 0.84 (13.75)
Would you say that most people try to be fair? 0.70 (11.00)
Value-driven attribution Theya feel morally obliged to help 0.79 (12.59) 0.64 (10.16)
Their owners or employees believe in this cause 0.82 (13.39) 0.85 (15.03)
Ellen et al. (2006) They want to make it easier for consumers who care about
the cause to support it
0.80 (12.82) 0.83 (14.52)
They are trying to give something back to the community 0.77 (12.21) 0.80 (13.69)
Strategic attribution
(Ellen et al. 2006)
They will get more customers by performing this social action
They will keep more of their customers through this social action
0.78 (11.96)
0.91 (14.68)
0.87 (15.78)
0.89 (16.31)
Stakeholder-driven attribution
(Ellen et al. 2006)
They feel their customers expect itb
They feel society in general (i.e., consumers) expects it
They feel their stockholders expect it
0.92 (15.46)
0.78 (12.38)
0.78 (12.41)
0.97 (16.51)
0.70 (10.79)
0.64 (9.95)
Egoistic attribution (Ellen et al.
2006)
They are taking advantage of the nonprofit organization to help their own
business
They are taking advantage of the cause to help their own business
They want to use it as a tax write-off
0.77 (11.86)
0.51 (6.48)
0.87 (13.88)
0.75 (12.55)
0.52 (6.72)
0.88 (15.61)
a Regarding ‘‘Your PC Store’’b Regarding the CSR action mentioned
‘‘We are fortunate to be starting in the right place at the right time, because our investors accepted our business concept very favorably. In my
opinion, the most important plus in our company is that we know our customers’ needs, we know them personally, and we know their
preferences, and if there is any problem, we always, always resolve it,’’ said John
The franchise model allows John and Anthony to access a market of millions of people and transmit the know-how of the company to
investors, control the marketing strategy of the franchise, and at the same time transmit the values of the brand and the company. ‘‘The
business model adopted allows us to control the way our partners are working and not be worried about how the store is going; it also allows
us to pass on the values of our company,’’ affirmed Anthony
‘‘Your PC Store’’ shows a higher level of product quality, and people trust the way in which the company commercializes its new products,
which is why it obtains a higher level of satisfaction than its main competitors. In short, it has an excellent price-quality relationship and a
complete service. [High CA Manipulation]
The company is faithful to its main values; one of these is corporate social responsibility. For the last ten years, the company has worked hard
to donate personal computers, after repairing them, to orphanages within the cities in which it is located. When a customer needs to repair a
computer, they bring it to the nearest ‘‘Your PC Store’’, where a staff member assesses the problem; if the repair is not economically
feasible, the computer is recycled. If it can be repaired afterwards, it is donated to an orphanage in the city. ‘‘Your PC Store’’ pays all repair
costs before donating the computer to the orphanage. [High Fit Manipulation]
[Study 2] A recent study published by Corporate Press indicates that consumers believe that people are reliable and will not take advantage of
you. In fact, entrusted people will do well in life because they trust them [high interpersonal trust manipulation]. Furthermore, ‘‘Your PC
Store’’ has recently appeared in a news release in the local press, which reveals that ‘‘Your PC Store’’ wasn’t honestly involved in corporate
social responsibility activities and that the store portrays an unrealistic image. In short, ‘‘Your PC Store’’ does CSR activities to look good
but does not actually do what it says [high corporate hypocrisy manipulation]
Determinants of Consumer Attributions of CSR
123
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.
Allen, C. T. (1982). Self-perception based strategies for stimulating energy
conservation. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(4), 381–390.
Anderson, N. H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change.
Psychological Review, 78(3), 171–206.
Backhaus, K. B., Stone, B. A., & Heiner, K. (2002). Exploring the
relationship between corporate social performance and employer
attractiveness. Business and Society, 41(3), 292–318.
Barone, M. J., Norman, A. T., & Miyazaki, A. D. (2007). Consumer
response to retailer use of cause-related marketing: is more fit
better? Journal of Retailing, 83(4), 437–445.
Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The
impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer
behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46–53.
Bell, S. J., Menguc, B., & Stefani, S. L. (2004). When customers
disappoint: A model of relational internal marketing and
customer complaints. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 32(2), 112–126.
Berens, G., Van Riel Cees, B., & Van Rekom, J. (2007). The CSR-
Quality Trade-Off: When can corporate social responsibility and
corporate ability compensate each other? Journal of Business
Ethics, 74(3), 233–252.
Berens, G., Van Riel, C. B. M., & Van Bruggen, G. H. (2005).
Corporate associations and consumer product responses: The
moderating role of corporate brand dominance. Journal of
Marketing, 69(3), 35–48.
Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T. M., & Pillutla, M. (1998). A formal
model of trust based on outcomes. Academy of Management
Review, 23(3), 459–472.
Bhattacharya C. B., & Sen S. (2003). Consumer-company identifi-
cation: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships
with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good:
When, why and how consumers respond to corporate social
initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9–24.
Bigne, E., Alcaniz, R., & Curras, P. (2010). Alliances between brands
and social causes: The influence of company credibility on social
responsibility image. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(2),
169–186.
Bilsky, W., & Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Values and personality.
European Journal of Personality, 8(3), 163–181.
Boush, D. M., & Loken, B. (1991). A process-tracing study of brand
extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(1),
16–28.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product:
corporate associations and consumer product responses. The
Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.
Table 4 Means, standard deviations, scale reliability and correlations (study 1)
Mean SD AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Values-driven attribution 4.84 1.52 0.63 0.86 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.20 0.28
2. Strategic attribution 7.29 1.87 0.72 0.18** 0.80 0.19 0.05 0.00 0.10
3. Egoist attribution 6.94 1.74 0.54 -0.10n.s. 0.44*** 0.71 0.06 0.04 0.00
4. Stakeholder-driven attribution 4.55 2.04 0.69 0.39*** 0.22*** 0.25*** 0.86 0.09 0.03
5. Company–cause fit 4.65 2.90 n.a. 0.45*** -0.02 n.s. -0.21*** 0.30*** n.a. 0.10
6. Corporate ability 7.03 1.92 0.69 0.53*** 0.32*** -0.04n.s. 0.17** 0.31*** 0.80
Cronbach’s alpha is reported along the diagonal. Correlations are reported in the lower half of the matrix. Share variances are reported in the
upper half of the matrix
AVE average variance extracted, n.a. not available
CFA fit statistics: v2(76) = 158.46, p = 0.00, GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.85, RMSEA = 0.074 SRMR = 0.069
* p \ 0.10; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01; n.s. not significant
Table 5 Means, standard deviations, scale reliability and correlations (study 2)
Mean SD AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Values-driven attribution 4.18 1.35 0.62 0.86 0.19 0.18 0.00 0.14 0.20
2. Strategic attribution 6.10 2.27 0.77 0.44*** 0.86 0.26 0.05 0.00 0.25
3. Egoist attribution 5.43 1.84 0.54 -0.42*** 0.51*** 0.72 0.03 0.00 0.25
4. Stakeholder-driven attribution 4.00 1.80 0.62 0.04n.s. 0.23*** 0.17** 0.78 0.10 0.07
5. Interpersonal trust 2.58 1.17 0.60 0.37*** -0.06n.s. 0.02n.s. 0.31*** 0.79 0.02
6. Corporate hypocrisy 3.53 1.68 0.53 -0.45*** -0.50*** 0.50*** 0.26*** 0.15** 0.72
Cronbach’s alpha is reported along the diagonal. Correlations are reported in the lower half of the matrix. Share variances are reported in the
upper half of the matrix
AVE average variance extracted, n.a. not available
CFA fit statistics: v2(120) = 262.15, p = 0.00, GFI = 0.88, AGFI = 0.83, RMSEA = 0.074 SRMR = .068
* p \ 0.10; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01; n.s. not significant
L. Marın et al.
123
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131.
Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer
do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 18(7), 560–577.
Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as
aspirational talk. Organization, 20(3), 372–393.
Cui, Y., Trent, E. S., Sullivan, P. M., & Matiru, G. N. (2003). Cause-
related marketing: how generation Y responds. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(6), 310–320.
Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445–455.
Drumwright, M. (1996). Company advertising with social dimension:
the role of non-economic criteria. Journal of Marketing, 60(4),
71–87.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business
returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The role of
CSR Communication. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 12(1), 8–20.
Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate
associations: consumer attributions for corporate socially re-
sponsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34(2), 147–157.
Fein, S. (1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the
correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 70(6), 1164–1184.
Fein, S., Hilton, J. L., & Miller, D. T. (1990). Suspicion of ulterior
motivation and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 58, 753–764.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. New York:
Harper & Row.
Folkes, V. S. (1984). Consumer reactions to product failure: an
attributional approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(4),
398–409.
Forehand, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003). When is honesty the best policy?
The effect of stated company intent on consumer skepticism.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 349–356.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Gao, Y. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’
response: the missing linkage. Baltic Journal of Management,
4(3), 269–287.
Garcia de los Salmones, M. M., Herrero Crespo, A., & Rodriguez del
Bosque, I. (2005). Influence of corporate social responsibility on
loyalty and valuation of services. Journal of Business Ethics,
61(4), 369–385.
Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Batra, R. (2004). When corporate image affects
product evaluations: The moderating role of perceived risks.
Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2), 197–205.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New
York: Wiley.
Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2002). Building brand equity through
corporate societal marketing. Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 21(1), 78–89.
Hur, W., Kim, H., & Woo, J. (2014). How CSR leads to corporate
brand equity: Mediating mechanisms of corporate brand
credibility and reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1),
75–86.
Jahdi, K. S., & Acikdilli, G. (2009). Marketing communications and
corporate social responsibility (CSR): Marriage of convenience
or shotgun wedding? Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 103–113.
Jia, M., & Zhang, Z. (2014). How does the stock market value
corporate social performance? When behavioral theories interact
with stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(3),
433–465.
Johansen, S. T., Selart, M., & Grønhaug, K. (2013). The effects of risk
on initial trust formation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
43, 1185–1199.
Kelly, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American
Psychologist, 28, 107–128.
Lafferty, B. A., Goldsmith, R. E., & Hult, G. T. M. (2004). The
impact of the alliance on the partners: A look at cause-brand
alliances. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 509–531.
Lai, C., Chiu, C., Yang, C., & Pai, D. (2010). The effects of corporate
social responsibility on brand performance: the mediating effect
of industrial brand equity and corporate reputation. Journal of
Business Ethics, 95(3), 457–469.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining
trust in work relationships. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust
in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp.
114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The
effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to
corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68(4),
16–32.
Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility
in Europe and the U.S.: insights from businesses’ self-presen-
tation. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3),
497–514.
Marin, L., & Ruiz, S. (2007). ‘‘I need you too!’’ Corporate identity
attractiveness for consumers and the role of social responsibility.
Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3), 245–260.
Marin, L., Ruiz, S., & Rubio, A. (2009). The role of identity salience
in the effects of corporate social responsibility on consumer
behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 65–78.
Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. (2003). Corporate sponsorships of
philanthropic activities: when do they impact perception of
sponsor brand? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3),
316–327.
Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2005). The effects of corporate social
responsibility and price on consumer responses. Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 39(1), 121–147.
Munshi, D., & Kurian, P. (2005). Imperializing spin cycles: A
postcolonial look at public relations, greenwashing, and the
separation of publics. Public Relations Review, 31(4), 513–520.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H., & Paladino, A. (2014). Perceived
greenwashing: The interactive effects of green advertising and
corporate environmental performance on consumer reactions.
Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 693–707.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social
and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Stud-
ies, 24(3), 403–441.
Pracejus, J. W., & Olsen, G. D. (2004). The role of brand/cause fit in
the effectiveness of cause-related marketing campaigns. Journal
of Business Research, 57(6), 635–640.
Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. J., Carrie, S. T., & Li, H. (2004). Congruence
effects in sponsorship: the mediating role of sponsor credibility
and consumer attributions of sponsor motive. Journal of
Advertising, 33(1), 29–42.
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88–106.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not
so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of
Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
Saeidi, S. P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S. P., & Saeaeidi, S. A.
(2015). How does corporate social responsibility contribute to
firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive
advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction. Journal of
Business Research, 68(2), 341–350.
Determinants of Consumer Attributions of CSR
123
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead
to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social respon-
sibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 43–62.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of
corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stake-
holder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166.
Sengupta, J., Goodstein, R. C., & Boninger, D. S. (1997). All cues are
not created equal: obtaining attitude persistence under low-
involvement conditions. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4),
351–361.
Sheth, J. N., & Parvatiyar, A. (1995). Relationship marketing in
consumer markets: antecedents and consequences. Journal of
Marketing Science, 23(4), 255–271.
Simmons, C., & Becker-Olsen, K. (2004). When do social sponsorship
enhance or dilute equity: Fit, message source and the persistence of
effect. Advances in Consumer Research, 29(1), 287–289.
Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1979). The role of category accessibility
in the interpretation of information about persons. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 841–856.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional
approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
Swanson, D. L. (1995). Addressing a theoretical problem by
reorienting the Corporate Social Performance model. Academy
of Management Review, 20(1), 43–64.
Tokuda, Y., Jimba, M., Yanai, H., & Inoguchi, T. (2008). Interper-
sonal trust and quality of life: a cross-sectional study in Japan.
www.plosone.org.
Trimble, C. S., & Rifon, N. J. (2006). Consumer perceptions of
compatibility in cause-related marketing messages. International
Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11, 29–47.
Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social
performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective
employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.
Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vreschopoulos, A. P., & Avramidis, P.
K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: attributions, loyalty,
and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy
Marketing Science, 37(2), 170–180.
Wagner, T., Lutz, Richard J., & Barton, A. W. (2009). Corporate
hypocrisy: overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social
responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 71–79.
Walker, M., Here, B., Parent, M. M., & Drane, D. (2010). Social
responsibility and the Olympic Games: the mediating role of
consumer attributions. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4),
659–680.
Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer
responses to cause-related marketing: From skeptics to socially
concerned. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17(2),
226–238.
Williams, P., & Aaker, J. L. (2002). Can mixed emotions peacefully
coexist? Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 636–649.
Winters, L. C. (1988). Does it pay to advertise to hostile audiences
with corporate advertising? Journal of Advertising Research,
28(3), 11–18.
Yoon, Y., Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of
corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies
with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4),
377–390.
Zaheer, A., Mcevily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter?
Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal
trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141–159.
Zdravkovic, S., Magnusson, P., & Stanley, S. M. (2010). Dimensions
of fit between a brand and a social cause and their influence on
attitudes. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(2),
151–160.
L. Marın et al.
123
View publication statsView publication stats