Y RESPOSE.pdf

The influence of gender, social cause, charitablesupport, and message appeal on Gen Y’s responses tocause-related marketing

Karen H. Hyllegard, Colorado State University, USARuoh-Nan Yan, Colorado State University, USAJennifer Paff Ogle, Colorado State University, USAJulianne Attmann, The Art Institute of Colorado, USA

Abstract This study examined the influence of gender, type of social cause,amount of charitable support, and message appeal on Gen Y consumers’attitudes and purchase intentions towards an apparel brand within the contextof cause-related marketing. A questionnaire, with an experimental designcomponent, was administered to a sample of 562 Gen Y college students.Results suggest that Gen Y consumers are more likely to form positiveattitudes towards an apparel brand when the amount of the charitable supportis clearly communicated. Gender did not influence attitude towards brand, but didpredict purchase intentions. Attitude towards brand, subjective norm, evaluationof the advertisement, and involvement in social causes were strong predictors ofpurchase intentions. When developing CRM initiatives, marketers shouldconsider Gen Y’s involvement in a social cause (e.g. volunteerism) rather thantheir stated interest in the given cause, and they would be well advised to stateprecisely (in advertisements) the amount of monetary contribution made tocharitable causes.

Keywords cause-related marketing; charitable support; sexual message appeal;purchase intention; Gen Y

Introduction

Cause-related marketing (CRM) – communication designed to promote the purchaseof a consumer good or service that simultaneously results in a contribution to a socialcause, where oftentimes a direct relationship exists between the sale of a company’sproduct and its support of a social cause (Barone, Miyazaki, & Taylor, 2000; Berglind& Nakata, 2005) – has become increasingly common in today’s marketplace.Consumer product companies that establish CRM initiatives have been both praisedfor their contributions to non-profit organisations/causes and criticised for theirambiguous, excessive, inappropriate, and ineffective use of this marketing strategy(Cundiff, 2006; Frazier, 2007; Perlman & Chang, 2007; Polonsky & Wood, 2001;

ISSN 0267-257X print/ISSN 1472-1376 online

# 2010 Westburn Publishers Ltd.

DOI:10.1080/02672571003683755

http://www.informaworld.com

Journal of Marketing ManagementVol. 27, Nos. 1–2, February 2011, 100–123

Strom, 2007). Criticism aside, the value of CRM lies in the mutual benefit that suchinitiatives provide to consumer product companies, consumers, and society in general,including the ability to enhance company revenue, build brand reputation, generategoodwill and positive consumer attitudes towards a company, provide consumers witha sense of personal fulfilment through giving, and heighten exposure and increasefunding for the cause or non-profit organisation (Berglind & Nakata, 2005; Garcia,2007; Lavack & Kropp, 2003; Nan & Heo, 2007; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988;Webb & Mohr, 1998).

As with any marketing strategy, however, the true value of CRM is realised throughsuccessful implementation, which may be mediated by factors inherent in the socialcause itself, as well as factors related to the brand/company and the communicationapproach. In fact, there is some evidence that brand–cause fit, type of social cause(immediate, short-term e.g. natural disaster versus ongoing, long-term e.g. medicalcause), the scope or proximity of the cause (local vs. national/international), andthe method, amount, and transparency (i.e. clarity regarding the amount) of thecompany’s contribution to a cause may influence consumers’ attitudes andbehaviours towards the cause and the company (see Gupta & Pirsch, 2006b).

Another factor to consider is the general message appeal (e.g. fear, humour, sex)that marketers employ in cause-related marketing campaigns in order to attractconsumer attention and encourage specific behaviours. Apparel and cosmetic brandssuch as Candie’s, MAC, and Rampage have recently employed themes of sexuality inCRM campaigns designed to assist children living with HIV and AIDS, supportdisaster-relief efforts, and prevent teen pregnancy. To date, however, there is limitedempirical evidence (e.g. Pope, Voges, & Brown, 2004; Reichert, Heckler, & Jackson,2001) to support, in general, the efficacy of sexual appeals in social marketing, and, inparticular, there is no empirical evidence to support the seemingly incongruent unionof sexual appeals and social causes in cause-related marketing campaigns designed topromote simultaneously the sale of goods or services and generate contributions to thecause.

Purpose

The purpose of this research was to examine the influence of cause-related marketingon Gen Y consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions towards brand-name apparel.More specifically, this study was developed to meet multiple objectives. First, becausecauses featured within CRM campaigns may be perceived differently by male versusfemale consumers, the present work examined how gender might influence Gen Yconsumers’ interest and involvement in a given social cause. Second, becauseresponses to social causes may vary by their emotional relevance to individuals(Broderick, Jogi, & Garry, 2003; Cone Inc., 2006), this research also examined howthe type of cause may influence interest and involvement in a given cause.Furthermore, this study investigated the influence of the type of social cause,amount of charitable support, and message appeal on Gen Y consumers’ evaluationsof advertisements, attitudes towards apparel brand, and intentions to purchase brand-name apparel within the context of CRM. Of particular interest was the use of sexualmessage appeals in cause-related marketing, which, as noted above, may represent anunlikely juxtaposition. Although there is some evidence to suggest that the type ofsocial cause, amount of charitable support, and message appeal may influenceconsumers’ responses to CRM initiatives (Gupta & Pirsch, 2006b; Pope et al.,

Hyllegard et al. Influence of gender, social cause, charitable support, and message appeal on Gen Y 101

2004), more research is needed to understand the relative importance of these factorsin the decision-making process and to understand better how marketers might developeffective CRM campaigns.

Gen Y college students aged 18–28 years were selected as the sample for this study.Research suggests that college-aged members of Gen Y are responsive to the use ofCRM as a way for businesses to show their support for society (Cui, Trent, Sullivan, &Matiru, 2003). Apparel was selected as the product category for this study because it isan important product category for this age group (Crane, 2007; O’Donnell, 2006;Paul, 2001) and because numerous apparel companies have employed CRM as acompetitive strategy. Also, this study explored the influence of sexual appeals onconsumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions because brand-name apparelmanufacturers and retailers frequently use sexual appeals in their advertisingcampaigns, including in their CRM initiatives.

Related literature

Gen Y consumers

Members of the Gen Y cohort (i.e. individuals born between 1979 and 1994) (Wolburg& Pokrywczynski, 2001) are defined by their shared ‘coming of age’ experiences thatare likely to have a life-long influence on their values, attitudes, preferences, andbuying behaviours (Schewe, Meredith, & Noble, 2000). Gen Y members have beendescribed as being more affluent, more self-sufficient, more individualistic, morebrand loyal, and more tolerant than members of other cohort groups (Farris, Chong,& Danning, 2002; Krotz, n.d.; Morton, 2002; Noble, Haytko, & Phillips, 2009;O’Donnell, 2006). Additionally, traditional values and parental approval appear to bemore important to members of Gen Y than to members of Gen X (Kortz, n.d.). Asconsumers, members of Gen Y are characterised as: being more educated, morematerialistic, and more spontaneous; giving more emphasis to the ‘immediacy andinstant gratification’ involved in the purchasing process; having higher expectationsfor goods and services; desiring greater ‘connectedness’ with peers and purchaseinfluencers – including retailers and service providers; being more technology savvy;using the Internet more for product-information search and purchase; being moresceptical of advertising and media; and being more socially conscious than otherconsumer cohorts (Cauley, 2006; Cone Inc., 2006; Jayson, 2006; Krotz, n.d.; Loroz,2006; National Retail Federation, 2006; Noble et al., 2009).

There are an estimated 82 million Gen Y consumers in the United States who spendapproximately $200 billion annually on purchases of consumer goods and services(Waters, 2006). On average, older members of Gen Y (i.e. those aged 18–30) spend12% of their discretionary income on apparel, which represents twice the amountspent by other segments of the adult population (Crane, 2007; ‘The Gen Y budget,’2002; Paul, 2001; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). Recent surveys of collegestudents (aged 18–30) suggest that apparel and footwear account for approximately10% of this group’s expenditures on discretionary items, and that their total annualexpenditure for apparel, exclusive of college name or logo merchandise, is $4.9billion. Additionally, female college students reported spending 75% more than theirmale counterparts on apparel and footwear each month; on average, female studentsreported monthly expenditures of $42, whereas male students reported monthlyexpenditures of $24 (Seckler, 2005).

102 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

Given the number of individuals in the Gen Y cohort, as well as this group’sconsiderable purchasing power (Farris et al., 2002), marketers have repeatedlyemployed cohort segmentation to position and promote products to Gen Y consumers(Schewe & Noble, 2000). There is some debate, however, as to the validity of cohortsegmentation. Although marketers may be able to understand and predict someconsumption behaviours by segmenting consumers into groups based upon dates ofbirth (i.e. shared ‘coming of age’ experiences) (Kerr, Greenfield, Bond, Ye, & Rehm,2004; Rentz & Reynolds, 1991; Stewart & Blisard, 2008), there is also support for theuse of life-stage and lifestyle segmentation (which may be independent of age) to explainother consumption behaviours (Della, DeJoy, & Lance, 2008; Schewe & Noble, 2000;Todd & Lawson, 2001). Schewe and Noble (2000) noted that more research is neededto understand fully the value of cohort segmentation, and subsequently conducted theirown empirical investigation to this end (Noble & Schewe, 2003). Findings from theirstudy led the researchers to question whether values can predict cohort membership,and, in turn, to question the usefulness of cohorts for predicting behaviour. Further, theauthors suggested that marketers may benefit more from tapping into consumers’ sharedvalues rather than from focusing on age-identified cohorts (Noble & Schewe, 2003).

It has been suggested that members of the Gen Y cohort share two decisive values – adesire/ability to become educated consumers and a concern for social causes andactivism – that brand conscious marketers should be especially cognisant of (Kilmer& Kilmer, Inc., 2000). Among Gen Y, this concern is reflected in both theirvolunteerism and consumer decision making. Between 45 and 80% of Gen Ymembers engage in some type of volunteer work (Alloy Media þ Marketing, 2006;Deloitte, 2007; Howe & Strauss, 2005), and for the majority of this cohort, volunteerefforts are motivated not by personal gain (e.g. resume building), but rather by a desireto help others and to contribute to the community (Alloy Media þMarketing, 2006).

Causes that rank among the top concerns for members of Gen Y include education,poverty, the environment, and health and disease (Cone Inc., 2006), and there isgrowing evidence to suggest that these concerns may influence their purchases.Findings from recent Alloy Explorer Studies indicate a growing response amongcollege students to socially and environmentally responsible advertising campaigns.Among this consumer segment, preference for brands that give back to the community,which are environmentally sound, or which are connected to a cause grew from 33%in 2006 to 37% in 2007 (Alloy MediaþMarketing, 2006, 2007). Further, 66% of GenY consumers would recommend a company’s products and services to others if thecompany acts in a socially responsible manner, 69% consider a company’s social andenvironmental commitment when deciding where to shop, and 89% would likely orvery likely switch brands (if price and quality are equal) when another brand isassociated with a good cause (Cone Inc., 2006). In order for these CRM campaignsto succeed with Gen Y consumers, the cause must have emotional relevance, and theproducts and services need to be fairly priced and be of good quality (Cone Inc., 2006).Likewise, Barone et al. (2000) found that consumer response to CRM initiatives islikely to be mediated by product price and performance.

Cause-related marketing

Research suggests that both consumer demographics and psychographics may influencethe effectiveness of CRM campaigns. Researchers have explored the influence of gender,education, and income upon responses to CRM initiatives but with somewhat


inconsistent results. For instance, some work indicates that female consumers are morelikely to report positive attitudes towards a CRM offer, as well as towards a company/brand that uses CRM, than are male consumers (Cui et al., 2003; Ross, Patterson, &Stutts, 1992; Trimble & Rifon, 2006). However, other findings suggest that gender doesnot impact consumer responses to CRM initiatives (Pope et al., 2004; Youn & Kim,2008). Similarly, results examining the influence of income upon consumer responses toCRM are mixed; although Cui et al. (2003) discovered that Gen Y consumers’evaluations of CRM claims were shaped by their parents’ annual incomes, Youn andKim (2008) found that income did not predict attitudes towards CRM. In addition,research indicates that the level of education may not impact consumer support forCRM (Youn & Kim, 2008).

Research has also yielded insights regarding the influence of consumers’engagement in social causes upon their responses to CRM campaigns. For example,Youn and Kim (2008) discovered a positive relationship between an individual’sprosocial behaviours (i.e. past charitable contributions and civic engagement) andsupport for cause-related marketing. Likewise, Cui et al. (2003) found that Gen Yconsumers’ evaluations of CRM offers were influenced by the frequency of their priorpersonal donations to charitable organisations. Findings from work by Broderick et al.(2003) suggest that involvement in a cause may influence an individual’s awareness ofand response to CRM campaigns. Further, Grau and Folse (2007) found that personalinvolvement in a cause influenced CRM participation intentions but not attitudestowards the CRM campaign.

A considerable amount of scholarly attention has been dedicated to examining howvariables such as brand–cause fit, type of social cause, and scope of the cause mayinfluence consumer response to CRM. Findings from multiple studies suggest thatbrand–cause fit positively influences consumers’ attitudes towards the company/brandand purchase intentions (Barone, Norman, & Miyazaki, 2007; Gupta & Pirsch,2006a; Lafferty & Goldsmith, 2007; Lafferty, Goldsmith, & Hult, 2004; Trimble &Rifon, 2006). In contrast to these findings, however, two recent studies suggest thatbrand–cause fit does not have a strong impact on consumer attitudes or purchaseintentions, and that brand–cause fit may only influence consumer attitudes under highbrand-consciousness or brand-involvement conditions (Lafferty, 2007; Nan & Heo,2007).

Examinations into the type or immediacy of a cause (short-term – disaster – vs.ongoing – medical or social issue) suggest that the type of cause may impact thelikelihood of a positive response. Specifically, both Cui et al. (2003) and Ellen,Mohr, and Webb (2000) found that consumers evaluated a CRM offer morepositively when it pertained to an immediate natural disaster rather than to anongoing cause. Given the design of these studies, however, these findings must beinterpreted cautiously. Of concern is that both studies required participants to makecomparisons of strikingly disparate social causes, including 9/11 versus ‘medicalresearch’ (Cui et al., 2003) and ‘a flood’ versus a ‘charitable group’ (Ellen et al.,2000). Further, in the latter study, the presentation of information about socialcauses was inconsistent. One group of participants viewed a five-minute video of thedevastation caused by the flood, as well as an advertisement, whereas the other groupviewed an advertisement only.

Research (e.g. Grau & Folse, 2007) also suggests that the impact of a cause’sgeographic scope (local, regional, or national) on consumer response to CRM isunclear. For example, Ross, Stutts, and Patterson (1990–1991) found that individualswere more likely to support a cause with a local rather than a national focus. In a


subsequent study, Ross et al. (1992) discovered little evidence that geographic scopeinfluenced individual attitudes towards the firm or the cause. Cui et al. (2003) also foundno difference in consumers’ evaluation of a CRM offer by scope of cause (local vs.national). More recently, however, Grau and Folse (2007) found that consumers hadmore positive attitudes towards the CRM campaign when the donations were directedto local (vs. national) causes.

Type of support (transaction-based vs. non-transaction-based) also may impactresponse to CRM. Berglind and Nakata (2005) defined transactional CRM as theclassic exchange-based donation program; that is, for every unit sold, the companydonates a share of its proceeds to a particular cause. The success of transactionalcampaigns may be limited by the fact that consumers are often unclear or confusedabout the amount of the contribution being made by the company to the stated cause(Olsen, Pracejus, & Brown, 2003). In one of the few empirical studies of consumerresponse to the contribution amount in CRM, Olsen et al. (2003) found that higherpercentage values generated more positive attitudes towards a company and strongerpurchase intentions. A comparison of consumer responses to donation amount statedas of ‘percentage of profit’ and ‘percentage of price’ did not reveal any differences inconsumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions, however.

Message appeals in CRM

Message appeals also may impact consumer response to CRM. A comparison of thetypes of message appeals used in profit-oriented versus social-cause advertisementsrevealed that, in total, emotional appeals were used more often in advertisementsdesigned to elicit behavioural change (i.e. social-cause campaigns). Specifically, happyand pleasant emotions were evoked most often in profit-oriented advertisements,whereas fear, anger, sadness, disgust, interest, and surprise were evoked most oftenin social-cause advertisements (Sciulli & Bebko, 2005).

One type of message appeal that is being used more frequently in CRM campaigns issex, and research indicates that sexual appeals can be effective in social-causecampaigns, particularly if the appeal is perceived to be germane to the cause(e.g. Pope et al., 2004; Reichert et al., 2001). This is not surprising given that boththe frequency and explicitness of sexual content (images and text) in advertisementshave intensified, with graphic depictions of provocatively dressed models, nudity, andsexual intercourse becoming increasingly common (LaTour & Henthorne, 1994;Reichert, 2007; Reichert & Carpenter, 2004; Severn, Belch, & Belch, 1990;Streitematter, 2004). Advertisers incorporate themes of sexuality into theirpromotional campaigns for a variety of reasons, the foremost of which is to elicitviewer attention. Research supports the premise that, due to its emotional quality,sexual content readily attracts and holds audience attention, which may, in turn, shapetheir behavioural response. Additionally, advertisers invoke themes of sexuality toappeal to viewers’ interests, promote brand benefits, enhance brand attitudes, andencourage product purchase (Reichert, 2007).

As noted, limited work has examined the use of sexual message appeals within thecontext of CRM. For instance, Reichert et al. (2001) examined the impact of sexualversus asexual appeals upon the cognitive processing of varied social causes (e.g. eatinghealthy, HIV/AIDS prevention). Findings suggested that compared to asexual appeals,sexual appeals generated more attention, were viewed more favourably, andstimulated more interest in the featured social cause. The researchers cautioned thatto avoid offending or distracting consumers, sexual appeals incorporated into CRM


should be relevant, free of sexism, and appealing to both genders. In a more recentstudy, Pope et al. (2004) explored consumers’ responses to the use of mild erotica(i.e. sexual appeal) within profit-oriented advertising and cause-related marketing.Results indicated that the sexual appeal elicited more positive attitudes towards boththe advertisement and the company (i.e. brand) than did the asexual appeal, which theresearchers speculated could have been due to the interpretation of the sexual appealsas striking, daring, or provocative. Findings further suggested that (a) women mayrespond more favourably to the use of sexual appeals in CRM than men, and (b) theuse of a sexual appeal in CRM can generate favourable perceptions of a company if theappeal is perceived to be congruent with the cause.

The use of sexual imagery and text is becoming especially commonplace inadvertisements aimed at young adult audiences (Reichert, 2003; Reichert &Carpenter, 2004; Soley & Kurzbard, 1986). One explanation for this is that youngadults tend to respond more positively to messages employing sexual appeals thanolder adults (Loroz, 2006). And although this may be true, there also is evidence thatyoung adult members of Gen Y may be less tolerant of the use of sexual appeals inadvertising than they are of other types of appeals such as fear (Maciejewski, 2004).Further, comparisons of male and female responses to the use of sexual appeals inadvertising suggest that women often respond more negatively to such appeals(Andersson, Hedelin, Nilsson, & Welander, 2004; LaTour & Henthorne, 1994;Maciejewski, 2004).

Sexual appeals are frequently used to promote apparel products, and, as such,apparel has served as the product of interest in several studies examining consumerresponse to the use of sex in advertisements (e.g. Grazer & Keesling, 1995; LaTour& Henthorne, 1994; Severn et al., 1990; Vezina & Paul, 1997). Findings regardingthe effectiveness of sexual appeals as an approach to promoting apparel areinconsistent. Severn et al. (1990) found that the use of a sexual appeal produced amore positive attitude towards an advertisement for athletic shoes, which, in turn,strengthened purchase intention. At the same time, however, consumers rated thesexually oriented advertisement to be more offensive compared to the non-sexualadvertisement. Further, Severn et al. (1990) concluded that when advertising appealswere overtly sexual, consumers focused more upon the sexual nature of theadvertisement than upon the product itself. Additionally, LaTour and Henthorne(1994) found that consumers evaluated explicit sexual appeals in an advertisementfor jeans less positively than more reserved sexual appeals. Similarly, Grazerand Keesling (1995) found among male participants, intention to purchase jeansvaried depending upon the level of sexual intensity featured in the advertisementviewed.

Theoretical framework

The theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975),which has been applied in numerous studies of apparel purchase intentions(e.g. Belleau, Summers, Xu, & Pinel, 2007; Dickson, 2000; Wiley, Krisjanous, &Cavana, 2007; Xu & Paulins, 2005), served as the guiding framework for this study.According to this theory, an individual’s stated intention to behave in a given manneris viewed as a product of his/her attitude towards a given behaviour and his/hersubjective norm (i.e. his/her perception of the desirability of the behaviour to otherswho are important to him/her). This relationship can be expressed algebraically as


BI ¼ ðABÞw1 þ ðSNÞw2

where BI represents behavioural intention, AB represents attitude towards thebehaviour, SN represents subjective norm, and w1 and w2 represent the weights ofthe respective factors. In turn, attitude towards a behaviour can be calculated as thesummed product of belief strength and belief evaluation. Here, belief strength isdefined as the extent to which an individual believes a behaviour and/or its outcometo be true or probable, and belief evaluation is conceptualised as the importance ordesirability of the belief to an individual. Subjective norm is calculated as the summedproduct of normative belief and motivation to comply with others. Normative beliefsrefer to one’s perceptions about what others think or believe, whereas motivation tocomply represents the extent to which an individual wants to do what others think thathe/she should do.

Although the theory of reasoned action has been widely applied in previousresearch to understand the relationships between attitudes and behaviouralintentions better, some researchers have raised concern about the application of thistheory to understand behaviours, such as those related to CRM, that involve a regardor consideration for others’ welfare (see Sparks & Shepherd, 2002). This concernstems from the fact that the theory of reasoned action is a rational choice model that isgrounded in the assumption that human behaviour is driven by motives of self-interest(i.e. rather than ‘other-interest’) (Zey, 1992). To address this matter, previousresearchers have modified the original model so as to include additional predictorvariables to account for the importance of ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’ influences in personalactions (e.g. Manstead, 2000; Sparks & Shepherd, 2002). The addition of variablesnot included in the original theory is in keeping with recommendations made by Ajzen(1991) and Ajzen and Fishbein (1980).

In the present study, the theory of reasoned action was applied to predict Gen Yconsumers’ intent to purchase brand-name apparel. To afford a richer understandingof the ways in which CRM influences consumers’ apparel purchase intentions, theclassic Fishbein and Ajzen model was extended to include the following variables:perception of CRM, evaluation of advertisement, interest in social cause, involvementin social cause, gender, and monthly apparel expenditures. Of interest was if and howthe addition of these external variables to the theory of reasoned action improved theutility of the purchase-intention model.

Like Mitchell and Olson’s (1981) seminal work, then, the present study examinedthe way in which consumers’ purchase intentions towards a given brand are shaped bytheir attitudes towards that brand as well as by their evaluations of brandadvertisements. Also of interest in the present analysis was how Gen Y consumers’purported concern for social causes and activism may impact their attitudes towardsan apparel brand engaged in CRM.

Justification and hypotheses

Existing research provides some preliminary evidence that the type and scope of socialcause included in a CRM campaign may impact consumer attitudes and behaviours.Limitations in the designs used in some of this work, however, point to a need forfurther research regarding the viability and efficacy of various types of causes for thepromotion of specific product categories or brands. In particular, work is needed toexplore further how consumers might respond to or distinguish between social causes


that are similar in focus and scope (e.g. two ongoing medical causes), but that may differin emotional relevance (Broderick et al., 2003; Cone Inc., 2006) or other qualitativeways (e.g. who is afflicted by a disease or how a disease is contracted). For example,CRM campaigns created in support of a medical cause that is perceived to be beyond apatient’s personal control (e.g. breast cancer, Alzheimer’s) may yield more favourableresponses than those developed to support a medical cause that is believed to bepreventable (e.g. AIDS, obesity). Similarly, gender may impact responses to CRMcampaigns. Campaigns designed to benefit breast-cancer research/patients might elicitdifferent responses from female versus male consumers, or consumers of the samegender may respond more favourably to one cause over another. Additionally, recentnews coverage on the ambiguous nature of monetary contribution claims (Strom, 2007),along with Olsen et al.’s (2003) findings, raise questions about the ways in whichconsumer attitudes and purchase intentions may be influenced by the amount of acompany’s charitable support to a social cause as communicated in a CRM campaign.Finally, although there is growing evidence of the use of sexual appeals in CRMcampaigns, little is known about consumers’ responses to this message appeal.

Thus, based upon the literature reviewed and the theory of reasoned action, thefollowing hypotheses were developed to meet the objectives of the present study:

H1: (a) Gender will influence interest in social cause and involvement in social cause.(b) Type of social cause will influence interest in the cause and involvement in thecause.

H2: (a) Type of social cause will influence evaluation of the advertisement. (b) Amount ofcharitable support will influence evaluation of the advertisement. (c) Messageappeal will influence evaluation of the advertisement.

H3: (a) Type of social cause will influence attitude towards apparel brand. (b) Amount ofcharitable support will influence attitude towards apparel brand. (c) Messageappeal will influence attitude towards apparel brand.

H4: Perception of CRM, evaluation of the advertisement, interest in social cause,involvement in social cause, and gender will predict attitude towards apparel brand.

H5: (a) Type of social cause will influence purchase intention towards apparel brand.(b) Amount of charitable support will influence purchase intention towards apparelbrand. (c) Message appeal will influence purchase intention towards apparel brand.

H6: Attitude towards apparel brand and subjective norm, as well as variables external tothe theory of reasoned action, including perception of CRM, evaluation of theadvertisement, interest in social cause, involvement in social cause, gender, andmonthly apparel expenditures will predict purchase intention towards apparel brand.

Methods

Data instrument

A questionnaire with an experimental design component was developed to examine theinfluence of CRM on Gen Y consumers’ apparel purchase intentions. The questionnaireincluded socio-demographic items – age, gender, ethnicity, and monthly expendituresfor apparel purchases (as a proxy for income) – and multiple quantitative measures.Principle component analysis with Varimax rotation was used as the data reduction


method for selected multi-item scales (as described below). A minimum eigenvalue of1.0 determined the number of factors extracted. Items loading equal to or greater than.60 on a given factor and less than .30 on other factors were retained to ensureunidimensionality (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).

Perception of CRM

Perception of CRM was assessed using six statements measured on a seven-pointLikert scale (1 ¼ ‘strongly disagree’, 7 ¼ ‘strongly agree’). Based upon the factoranalysis, five items were retained: (a) I would be willing to pay more money for apparelgoods if I knew a percentage of the profits from the sale were being donated to acharitable/social cause; (b) I have a favourable opinion of apparel companies thatprovide monetary support for charitable/social causes; (c) CRM is beneficial toconsumers, apparel companies, and the charitable/social cause; (d) If all otherfactors (e.g. price, fit, etc.) were equal, I would choose to purchase an apparel brandthat provides monetary support to charitable/social causes over a brand that does not;and (e) Apparel companies that use cause-related marketing are motivated by self-interest (i.e. increased profits), only. Cronbach’s alpha for the five-item scale was .71.

Advertisement stimuli and evaluation

Ten advertisement stimuli were created by manipulating three variables: (a) type ofsocial cause (no social cause, breast cancer, or AIDS), (b) amount of charitable support(a portion of profits or 20% of profits), and (c) message appeal (asexual or sexual).Because the ‘no social cause’ condition precluded the need to disclose charitablesupport information in the advertisement, the total number of treatment groupsequaled 10 (i.e. [3 � 2 � 2] – 2). Breast cancer and AIDS were selected as the socialcauses to achieve consistency across treatment groups in the type and scope of socialcauses viewed (i.e. both breast cancer and AIDS are ongoing medical causes that areinternational in scope), thereby overcoming a methodological weakness of previouswork (Cui et al., 2003; Ellen et al., 2000). Additionally, these causes were chosenbecause they may be perceived differently in the minds of consumers (e.g. in terms ofwho is afflicted or how the disease is contracted).

The experimental design included 10 ad-exposure treatment groups:

Ad #1: Asexual appeal (i.e. no social cause or charitable support information)Ad #2: Sexual appeal (i.e. no social cause or charitable support information)Ad #3: Breast cancer, portion of profits, asexual appealAd #4: Breast cancer, 20% of profits, asexual appealAd #5: Breast cancer, portion of profits, sexual appealAd #6: Breast cancer, 20% of profits, sexual appealAd #7: AIDS, portion of profits, asexual appealAd #8: AIDS, 20% of profits, asexual appealAd #9: AIDS, portion of profits, sexual appealAd #10: AIDS, 20% of profits, sexual appeal

All advertisement stimuli contained a colour photograph and the fictitious apparelbrand name who.R.U. jeans, with or without additional text referencing a social causeand the amount of monetary contribution to the cause. For example, the text ‘Aportion (20%) of the profits from the sale of who.R.U. jeans will be donated to theNational Breast Cancer (AIDS) Fund during the month of October’ varied according to


treatment group by social cause named and contribution amount stated. Twoimages were selected to represent the asexual and sexual message appeals. Image #1(the asexual appeal) featured a female model wearing jeans and a long-sleeve topstanding in front of a male model wearing jeans and a short-sleeve t-shirt; the modelswere not touching. Image #2 (the sexual appeal) depicted a female model wearing jeansand a tank top facing a male model wearing jeans and a short-sleeve t-shirt; the femalemodel was in the act of removing the male’s t-shirt, thereby exposing his torso.

Evaluation of the advertisement

After viewing the stimuli advertisement, participants were instructed to evaluate theadvertisement using a nine-item semantic differential scale. The nine items wereadapted from previous studies (Holmes & Crocker, 1987; Sciglimpaglia, Belch, &Cain, 1979), and included the following bipolar adjective pairs as endpoints:appealing/unappealing, appropriate/inappropriate, effective/ineffective, ethical/unethical, informative/uninformative, interesting/disinteresting, convincing/unconvincing, not offensive/offensive, and valuable/worthless. For this measure,Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated separately for each ad-exposure groupin order to account for possible treatment effects. For all ad-exposure groups,Cronbach’s alpha exceeded the minimum .70 recommended by Nunnally (1978).

Interest in social cause

Interest in the social cause presented in the advertisement viewed was evaluated using 10existing items (Trimble & Rifon, 2006). All items were measured on a seven-pointsemantic differential scale. Based upon the factor analysis, eight bipolar adjective pairswere identified: unimportant/important, irrelevant/relevant, unexciting/exciting, meansnothing to me/means a lot to me, unappealing/appealing, mundane/fascinating,worthless/valuable, and not needed/needed. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .88.

Involvement in social cause

Participants’ involvement in the social cause was assessed using five items adaptedfrom the 2006 Cone Millennial Cause Study of Gen Y consumers (Cone Inc., 2006)and one item developed specifically to address individual experience with the cause.The items included: (a) I frequently donate time to this charitable/social cause, (b) Ifrequently donate money to this charitable/social cause, (c) I frequently purchaseproducts/services from companies that support this cause, (d) I look for ways(e.g. fundraiser, walkathons, etc.) to support this charitable/social cause, (e) I lookfor ways to educate others about the value or importance of supporting this charitable/social cause, and (f) Someone close to me has been impacted by this illness. Cronbach’salpha for this scale was .88.

Beliefs about brand (who.R.U. jeans)

Participants’ beliefs (i.e. belief strength) about who.R.U. jeans were measured using athree-item, seven-point Likert scale (1 ¼ ‘strongly disagree’, 7 ¼ ‘strongly agree’).Participants were asked to rate their agreement with the statements, ‘who.R.U. jeans . ..’ (a) ‘provides support for charitiable/social causes’, (b) ‘clearly communicates theamount of monetary contribution being made to charitable/social causes in theiradvertisements’, and (c) ‘engages in socially responsible business practices’. Cronbach’salpha for this scale was .78.


Importance of beliefs

Perceived importance of beliefs (i.e. belief evaluation) about supporting social causes alsowasmeasuredusingaseven-pointscale.Here,participantswereaskedtoratetheiragreementwith the statements, ‘It is important for apparel companies to . . .’ (a) ‘provide support forcharitiable/social causes’, (b) ‘clearly communicate the amount of monetary contributionbeing made to charitable/social causes in their advertisements’, and (c) ‘engage in sociallyresponsible business practices’. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .83. Attitude scoreswere calculated by summing the products of participants’ responses to all belief-strengthitems and the respective belief-evaluation items (see Ajzen, 1985; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).

Perceptions of others’ beliefs

Normative beliefs about supporting social causes were measured on a three-item,seven-point semantic differential scale. Participants reported their perceptions aboutwhether they believed that others who are important to them thought that they shouldbe concerned about (a) supporting charitiable/social causes, (b) buying products fromapparel companies that support charitable/social causes, and (c) socially responsiblebusiness practices. Endpoints for the scale were ‘I should not’ and ‘I should’.Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .77. A seven-point semantic differential scalewith the endpoints ‘Not at all’ and ‘Very much’ also was used to assess individualmotivation to comply with others. Participants responded to the single item, ‘Generallyspeaking, how much do you want to do what other people who are important to youthink?’ Subjective norms scores were calculated by summing the products ofparticipants’ responses to all normative belief items and the motivation to comply item.

Purchase intention

Behavioural intention was measured using a two-item, seven-point semanticdifferential scale with the endpoints, ‘Definitely not’ and ‘Definitely’. Participantswere asked if, in the future, they intended to (a) purchase who.R.U. jeans and/or (b) tella friend to purchase who.R.U. jeans. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .88.

Sample

An intercept survey approach was used to administer the questionnaire to students atvarious public locations at a large state university. The sample included 562 Gen Ycollege students, ranging in age from 18 to 28 years (M ¼ 20.8 years). The gender(48.6% male and 51.4% female) and ethnic mix of the sample mirrored the universitypopulation from which it was drawn, with the majority (81.7%) reporting Caucasianethnicity. Participants’ monthly expenditures for apparel ranged from $0–$500, withan average monthly expenditure of $69.78. Similar to findings from another survey(Seckler, 2005), an independent sample t-test (t ¼ �4.54, p � .001) revealed that, onaverage, female participants reported greater monthly expenditures for apparel($84.94) than did male participants ($53.27).

Results

Manipulation checks

Two manipulation checks were conducted to assess variation across treatment groupsin participants’ beliefs about the apparel brand, who.R.U. jeans. First, a one-way


analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to assess whether participants variedacross treatment groups in their perceptions of whether the brand provides support forcharitable/social causes. The brand’s support for charitable/social causes was measuredusing a single Likert item (1 ¼ ‘strongly disagree’, 7 ¼ ‘strongly disagree’). Resultsindicated that participants’ perceptions varied across groups (F ¼ 54.87, p < .001).Specifically, differences were discovered between participants who viewedadvertisements with a CRM claim and those who viewed advertisements withoutsuch a claim (Mno cause ¼ 2.83 vs. Mbreast ¼ 4.32, p < .001; Mno cause ¼ 2.83 vs.MAIDS¼ 4.50, p < .001). However, no differences emerged between those participantswho viewed advertisements featuring CRM claims in support of breast cancer versusAIDS (Mbreast¼ 4.32 vs. MAIDS¼ 4.50, p > .05). Second, an ANOVA was conducted toassess whether participants varied across treatment groups in their perceptions of theamount of support who.R.U. jeans contributes to charitable/social causes (F ¼ 79.70,p < .001). The amount of support for charitable/social causes also was measured usinga single Likert item. As expected, participants who viewed advertisements featuringclaims of support versus those who viewed advertisements that did not feature claimsof support varied in their perceptions of who.R.U. jeans’ contributions to charitable/social causes (Mno support ¼ 2.17 vs. Mportion ¼ 2.62, p < .05; Mno support ¼ 2.17 vs.M20% ¼ 4.26, p < .001). Additionally, participants who viewed advertisementsfeaturing assorted claims of support differed in their perceptions of the brand’scontributions to charitable/social causes (Mportion ¼ 2.62 vs. M20% ¼ 4.26, p < .001).

A third manipulation check was conducted to assess participants’ perceptions of thesexual appeal in the stimuli advertisements. Here, items from the Provocative Scale(De Pelsmacker & Van Den Bergh, 1996) were used as the dependent variable. Anindependent sample t-test revealed that advertisements featuring image #1 were ratedas less sexual in nature than advertisements featuring image #2 (t ¼ �7.03, p < .001,Mimage#1 ¼ 46.01 vs. Mimage#2 ¼ 54.16).

Hypothesis testing

Results of diagnostic analyses indicated no multicollinearity among the variousconstructs examined in this study. The variance inflation factor (VIF) for relevantregression models ranged from 1.03 to 1.65, and the tolerance values ranged from0.61 to 0.97, and thus fell within the acceptable ranges identified by Hair, Anderson,Tatham, and Black (1995).

Independent sample t-tests revealed that interest in social cause (t¼�8.43, p < .001)and involvement in social cause (t ¼ �4.91, p � .001) varied by gender. Femaleparticipants were both more interested in (Mfemales ¼ 46.10 vs. Mmales ¼ 40.78,p < .001) and more involved in (Mfemales ¼ 19.29 vs. Mmales¼ 15.82, p < .001) thestated social cause than were male participants. Independent sample t-tests revealed thatfemale participants were more interested in breast cancer as a cause than in AIDS as acause (t ¼ 3.08, p < .001; Mbreast cancer ¼ 47.53 vs. MAIDS ¼ 44.69) and were moreinvolved in the breast-cancer cause than in the AIDS cause (t ¼ 7.68, p < .001;Mbreast cancer ¼ 22.89 vs. MAIDS ¼ 15.84). By comparison, no difference was foundbetween male participants’ interest in breast cancer as a cause and AIDS as a cause.However, their involvement in these causes did differ (t¼ 9.19, p < .001; Mbreast cancer¼18.92 vs. MAIDS ¼ 12.84). Thus findings provide support for Hypothesis 1a.

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to examine the influence oftype of cause (i.e. breast cancer or AIDS) on interest in social cause and involvement insocial cause (Hypothesis 1b). Results of the MANOVA indicated that the overall


model was significant (Wilk’s lambda F¼ 47.18, p < .001). Results revealed that typeof cause influenced interest in social cause (F ¼ 12.86, p < .001) and involvement insocial cause (F¼ 94.52, p < .001). Participants who were exposed to the breast-cancercause reported greater interest in the cause than those who were exposed to the AIDScause (Mbreast cancer ¼ 44.73 vs. MAIDS ¼ 42.36, p < .001). Likewise, participants whowere exposed to the breast-cancer cause reported greater involvement in the causethan those who were exposed to the AIDS cause (Mbreast cancer ¼ 20.96 vs. MAIDS ¼14.39, p < .001). As such, Hypothesis 1b was supported.

Hypotheses 2a–c stated that type of social cause, amount of charitable support, andmessage appeal would influence consumers’ evaluations of the advertisement viewed.An ANOVA revealed that the overall model was not significant (F ¼ 1.60, p ¼ 1.60),and thus these hypotheses were not supported.

An ANOVA also was conducted to explore the influence of type of social cause(H3a), amount of charitable support (H3b), and message appeal (H3c) uponparticipants’ attitudes towards the fictitious brand, who.R.U. jeans. Results indicatedthat the overall model was significant (F ¼ 6.97, p < .001), suggesting thatparticipants’ attitudes towards the brand varied by ad-exposure treatment group.Univariate analyses indicated a main effect for amount of charitable support only(F ¼ 36.93, p < .001). Results from a Scheffe post-hoc test showed that participantswho viewed the advertisement with no mention of charitable support had less positiveattitudes towards the apparel brand than those who viewed the advertisement thatincluded a statement indicating that ‘a portion of profits will be donated to [the givencause]’ (Mno support ¼ 41.12 vs. Mportion ¼ 55.79, p < .001) and those who viewed theadvertisement that included a statement indicating that ‘20% of profits will be donatedto [the given cause]’ (Mno support ¼ 41.12 vs. M20%¼ 66.76, p < .001). In addition,participants who viewed the advertisement that included a statement indicating that ‘aportion of profits will be donated to [the given cause]’ held less positive attitudestowards the brand than did those who viewed the advertisement that included astatement indicating that ‘20% of profits will be donated to [the given cause]’(Mportion ¼ 55.79 vs. M20%¼ 66.76, p < .001). Thus findings suggest thatparticipants’ attitudes towards the brand were most positive when they wereexposed to the advertisements mentioning a clearly stated amount of charitablesupport, which is consistent with findings from previous work on the amount ofcharitable donation communicated in CRM campaigns (Olsen et al., 2003). Neithertype of social cause nor message appeal influenced consumers’ attitudes towards thebrand. Therefore, only Hypothesis 3b was supported.

Next, regression analysis was conducted to predict consumers’ attitudes towardsthe fictitious apparel brand, who.R.U. jeans (H4). As discussed, participants’ attitudestowards the brand were influenced by the amount of charitable support, as stated inthe advertisement viewed (H3b), but not by type of social cause (H3a) or messageappeal (H3c). Thus for these analyses, the sample was split into two groups based uponparticipants’ exposure to the treatment stimuli: (a) those who viewed ads containingthe claim that ‘a portion of profits will be donated to [the given social cause]’ and(b) those who viewed ads containing the claim that ‘20% of profits will be donated to[the given social cause]’.

Hypothesis 4 stated that attitudes towards the brand would be predicted byperception of CRM, evaluation of the advertisement, interest in social cause,involvement in social cause, and gender. For those who viewed ads containing theclaim that ‘a portion of profits will be donated to [the given social cause]’, resultsrevealed that the overall model was significant (R2 ¼ .23, F ¼ 11.74, p < .001;


see Table 1). Participants’ attitudes were positively predicted by perception of CRM,evaluation of the advertisement, and interest in social cause. Neither involvement insocial cause nor gender predicted attitudes towards the brand. That gender did notpredict attitude towards brand is contrary to previous findings related to CRM(e.g. Ross et al., 1992; Trimble & Rifon, 2006). For those who viewed adscontaining the claim that ‘20% of profits will be donated to [the given social cause]’,results revealed that the overall model was significant (R2¼ .28, F¼ 15.43, p < .001;see Table 1). Participants’ attitudes were positively predicted by perception of CRM,evaluation of the advertisement, interest in social cause, and gender. Involvement insocial cause did not predict attitude towards brand. Nonetheless, Hypothesis 4 waslargely supported.

An ANOVA was conducted to explore the influence of type of social cause (H5a),amount of charitable support (H5b), and message appeal (H5c) upon participants’purchase intention towards the fictitious brand, who.R.U. jeans. Results indicated thatthe overall model was not significant (F¼ 1.33, p > .05). Thus these hypotheses werenot supported.

Hypothesis 6 stated that purchase intentions towards the apparel brand would bepredicted by attitude towards the brand and subjective norm, as well as by variablesexternal to the theory of reasoned action, including perception of CRM, evaluation ofthe advertisement, interest in social cause, involvement in social cause, gender, andmonthly apparel expenditures. To test this hypothesis, two separate regressionanalyses – one based on the classic theory of reasoned action and one based on anextended version of the theory – were conducted. For these analyses, the sample wasnot divided into subgroups, as H5 was not supported. That is, participants in differentad-exposure groups did not vary in their purchase intentions. Results of the firstregression analysis revealed that the classic model was significant (R2 ¼ .15, F ¼47.70, p < .001); intent to purchase who.R.U. jeans was positively predicted byattitude towards apparel brand and subjective norm. The extended model also wassignificant (R2¼ .29, F¼ 25.27, p < .001; see Table 2). Participants’ intent to purchasethe brand was positively predicted by attitude towards the brand, subjective norm,

Table 1 Predicting Gen Y consumers’ attitudes toward apparel brand (n ¼ 562).

Independent variables B SE b t adj R2 R2

Group 1: Portion of profits

.21 .23***

Perception of CRM 1.11 .36 .21 3.08**

Evaluation of the ad viewed .86 .16 .34 5.36***

Interest in social cause .60 .23 .20 2.55*

Involvement in social cause .01 .20 .00 .06

Gendera �1.44 3.21 �.03 �.45

Group 2: 20% of profits

.26 .28***

Perception of CRM 1.35 .47 .20 2.91**

Evaluation of the ad viewed .69 .21 .21 3.29**

Interest in social cause .70 .29 .19 2.45*

Involvement in social cause .43 .23 .12 1.87

Gendera 8.51 4.01 .14 2.12*a1 ¼male; 2 ¼ female. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.


evaluation of the advertisement, involvement in social cause, gender, and monthlyapparel expenditures, and negatively predicted by interest in social cause. Perceptionof CRM, however, did not predict purchase intention. Thus Hypothesis 6 was largelysupported.

To compare the predictive utility of the classic and extended models, an F ratio wascalculated (i.e. the significant difference in the R2 values) (Tsai, 2006). Resultsindicated that the extended model did have additional explanatory power over theclassic model (F ¼ 17.92, p < .001).

Discussion and conclusions

The present work contributes to our understanding about the ways in which type ofcause and gender may influence Gen Y consumers’ interest and involvement in a givensocial cause, which, in turn, may have implications for CRM campaigns targeting thisage group. Of particular interest was the finding that consumers differed in theirevaluations of two social causes that were similar in focus and scope (i.e. ongoingmedical causes), seemingly finding breast cancer to be a more compelling cause thanAIDS. Additionally, the fact that female participants were more interested andinvolved in both of the causes examined in this study may suggest greateropportunities for apparel brands targeting women to employ CRM successfully. Inthe future, researchers may wish to examine further the qualitative ways in whichconsumers assess the emotional relevance of a given cause, which may influencepurchase decisions (see Broderick et al., 2003; Cone Inc., 2006). For example,might Gen Y consumers’ perceptions of the likelihood of personal affliction with adisease or stereotypes about who may become infected impact their interest orinvolvement in related social causes?

Table 2 Predicting Gen Y consumers’ intent to purchase the apparel brandwho.R.U. jeans (n ¼ 562).

Independent variables B SE b t adj R2 R2

Classic model

.15 .15***

Attitude towards apparel brand .03 .00 .29 7.01***

Subjective norm .02 .00 .19 4.74***

Extended model

.28 .29***

Attitude towards apparel brand .02 .01 .17 4.02***

Subjective norm .02 .00 0.19 4.59***

Perception of CRM �.03 .03 �.05 �1.17

Evaluation of the ad viewed .10 .01 .31 7.67***

Interest in social cause �.04 .02 �.10 �2.05*

Involvement in social cause .05 .02 .14 3.29**

Gendera .50 .25 .09 2.04*

Monthly apparel expenditures .00 .00 .10 2.59*a1 ¼male; 2 ¼ female. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.


Further, findings suggest that some of the variables explored in this study may bemore salient than are others in shaping Gen Y consumers’ attitudes towards an apparelbrand. In particular, results provide support for previous work (Olsen et al., 2003)indicating that consumers’ responses to CRM are likely to be influenced by the amountof charitable support stated in a given CRM campaign. Results suggested thatconsumers are more likely to form positive attitudes towards an apparel brand whenthe amount of the charitable contribution is clearly communicated (here, as a percentrather than as a portion of profits). In light of the growing concern around fulldisclosure of monetary contributions, apparel brands targeting Gen Y consumersmay be well advised not only to clearly communicate the amount of monetarycontribution (e.g. through use of percentage values) but also to report totalcontributions to date (see Perlman & Chang, 2007; Strom, 2007).

Contrary to expectations, neither type of social cause nor message appealimpacted consumers’ attitudes towards who.R.U. jeans. The finding that messageappeal did not influence consumers’ attitudes towards the apparel brand is contraryto previous research (Pope et al., 2004; Reichert et al., 2001), and may be explained,in part, by the product category – apparel – examined in this study. The use of sexualappeals is very common in fashion marketing, and much of the research on the useof sexual appeals in advertising has focused on this product category. Although it hasbeen argued that ‘fashion’ products are readily associated with sexual images, andthus are congruent with the use of sexual appeals (Severn et al., 1990), it may be thatGen Y consumers have grown so accustomed to seeing this type of message appealemployed to sell apparel that they have become ‘desensitised’ to this practice, nolonger finding these appeals to be ‘striking’ or ‘attention-getting’. For example,Zimmerman and Dahlberg (2008) found that sensitivity to such content hasdiminished among college women in recent years. Further, given that, in recentyears, both the frequency and explicitness of sexual content in advertisements haveintensified, especially in advertisements targeting young adult audiences (Reichert,2003; Reichert & Carpenter, 2004), it may be that the image used to create the sexualadvertisement stimuli developed for this study was not perceived to represent strongsexual intensity in the opinion of Gen Y consumers. Future examinations of the useof sexual appeals in CRM should give careful attention to the intensity of theseappeals.

As expected, attitude towards brand and subjective norm, as well as variablesexternal to theory of reasoned action, predicted intent to purchase who.R.U. jeans.This finding lends support for Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) argument that extendingtheir original reasoned action model to include additional relevant variables mayincrease its predictive utility. Interestingly, participants’ interests in the stated socialcause positively influenced their attitudes towards the brand, but negatively predictedtheir purchase intentions. Further, consistent with previous research (Broderick et al.,2003; Grau & Folse, 2007), participants who were more involved in social causestended to have more positive attitudes towards the brand and stronger purchaseintentions. Thus, in shaping CRM campaigns that target Gen Y consumers – and inselecting social causes that resonate with this group and translate into productpurchases – marketers may wish to consider this consumer cohort’s involvement in agiven cause (e.g. volunteerism) as opposed to their stated interest in the given cause. Tothis end, marketers might consider other social causes that resonate with Gen Y(e.g. education, poverty, the environment) (Cone Inc., 2006). Although additionalresearch is needed to explore why reported interest in a given social cause might benegatively related to purchase intentions among Gen Y, this finding may be explained


by the fact that companies have been criticised for the excessive and inappropriate useof CRM. Perhaps members of Gen Y who report interest rather than involvement in agiven cause (i.e. a different type of commitment) may genuinely find the cause to becompelling, but may be sceptical of a brand’s/company’s motivation for employingCRM (i.e. self-interest/profit), and thus interest in the cause may not translate intopurchases. To date, limited research has examined the impact of consumers’ scepticismrelative to CRM claims upon responses to such initiatives. Initial findings suggest thatconsumers may be somewhat sceptical of CRM claims (Brønn & Vrioni, 2000) butthat, contrary to researchers’ expectations, scepticism may positively predict attitudestowards CRM (Youn & Kim, 2008). Thus additional research in this area is warrantedto understand if and how consumers’ scepticism about a company’s motivations forimplementing CRM initiatives may shape their attitudes and behaviours towards thecompany.

Although participants’ perceptions of CRM predicted their attitudes towards thebrand, they did not influence their purchase intentions. It may be that those consumerswho view CRM as a positive business practice are likely to have favourable attitudestowards a brand or company that employs this strategy, but that contribution to asocial cause through product purchase may not be a powerful determinant in theapparel-purchase decision-making process among Gen Y consumers. There is researchto suggest that price is often the most important factor in the apparel-purchasedecision (Cotton Inc., 1999; Eckman, Damhorst, & Kadolph, 1990; Iwanow,McEachern, & Jeffrey, 2005). And, as Barone et al. (2000) discovered, product pricemay mediate consumers’ responses to CRM claims. Further, Gen Y consumers’decisions, more so than other consumer cohorts, may be influenced by their strongbrand preferences, particularly when it comes to the purchase of denim jeans (CottonInc., 1999; Loroz, 2006; National Retail Federation, 2006). Thus the fact that afictitious rather than a well-known brand was used in this study may have deterredparticipants from declaring purchase intentions towards the who.R.U. jeans brand. Inthe future, it may be valuable to examine Gen Y responses to CRM campaignsfeaturing established apparel brands.

Finally, three specific limitations to this study should be noted. First, although thetheory of reasoned action has been widely applied in previous research to understandthe relationships between attitudes and behavioural intentions better, there may besituations in which intentions do not accurately predict actual behaviours (Ajzen,1991; O’Keefe, 1990). Second, given the focus of this work upon CRM, it ispossible that the use of self-report data could have produced a social desirabilityresponse bias; in previous work, researchers have noted that participants may ‘over-report’ actions or intentions that are perceived to be socially desirable or ethical(e.g. their participation in a social cause or their behavioural intention to purchasewho.R.U. jeans) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Randall, 1989). In turn, this bias may haveweakened the predictive utility of the theory of reasoned action; according to Randall(1989), the theory will have the strongest predictive utility when social desirabilityresponse bias is minimised. Third, the present sample included only collegestudents, a particularly well-educated subset of Gen Y, and not the full range of thisconsumer cohort. Thus the possibility exists that the participants’ interest in andresponses to social causes may be informed by exposure to a specific campus culture,thereby limiting the generalisability of the findings. To explore the influence of highereducation on Gen Y responses to CRM campaigns, researchers might wish to compareattitudes and behaviours of university-educated and non-university-educatedconsumers of similar age.


References

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl &J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behaviour (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg,Germany: Springer.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 50(2), 179–211.

Ajzen I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Alloy MediaþMarketing (2006, July 5). A very convenient truth: College students ‘tuned in’ tosocial responsibility and the brands who they believe are making a difference. HarrisInteractive [online]. Retrieved October 30, 2007, from http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/clientnews/2006_Alloy.pdf

Alloy Media þ Marketing (2007, September 6). College students putting their money wheretheir cause is. Alloy Media þMarketing [online]. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from http://www.alloymarketing.com/investor_relations/news_releases/doc/070906_alloy_2.doc

Andersson, S., Hedelin, A., Nilsson, A., & Welander, C. (2004). Violent advertising in fashionmarketing. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 8(1), 96–112.

Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.

Barone, M.J., Miyazaki, A.D., & Taylor, K.A. (2000). The influence of CRM on consumerchoice: Does one good turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,28(2), 248–262.

Barone, M.J., Norman, A.T., & Miyazaki, A.D. (2007). Consumer response to retailer use ofCRM: Is more fit better? Journal of Retailing, 83(4), 437–445.

Belleau, B.D., Summers, T.A., Xu, Y., & Pinel, R. (2007). Theory of reasoned action: Purchaseintention of young consumers. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 25(3), 244–257.

Berglind, M., & Nakata, C. (2005). CRM: More buck than bang? Business Horizons, 48(5),443–453.

Broderick, A., Jogi, A., & Garry, T. (2003). Tickled pink: The personal meaning of cause relatedmarketing for customers. Journal of Marketing Management, 19(5–6), 583–610.

Brønn, P.S., & Vrioni, A.B. (2000). Measuring skepticism to cause related marketing: PreliminaryNorwegian results. (Working Paper). Norwegian School of Management BI [online].Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http://web.bi.no/forskning/papers.nsf/0/e929807bc105c6e5c1256882004b487a/$FILE/dp2000-01.pdf

Cauley, P. (2006). Cracking the Gen Y code. Electronic Retailer [online]. Retrieved December11, 2007, from http://www.electronicretailermag.com/info/1206_code.html

Cone Inc. (2006). The millennial generation: Pro-social and empowered to change the world –The 2006 Cone millennial cause study. Cone Inc. [online]. Retrieved December 12, 2007,from http://www.solsustainability.org/documents/toolkit/2006%20Cone%20Millennial%20Cause%20Study.pdf

Cotton Inc. (1999). Generation Y – Why? Cotton Incorporated [online]. Retrieved January 10,2008, from http://www.cottoninc.com/TextileConsumer/TextileConsumerVolume14/

Crane, L. (2007). On campus and beyond: College students today. Harris Interactive-Trends andTudes, 6(6), 1–4.

Cui, Y., Trent, E.S., Sullivan, P.M., & Matiru, G.N. (2003). CRM: How Generation Y responds.International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 31(6), 310–320.

Cundiff, R. (2006, October 29). Companies see tie-ins to charity as win–win situation; Criticsdiffer. Star-Banner [online]. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID¼/20061029/BUSINESS/210290318&SearchID¼73261567161287

Della, L.J., DeJoy, D.M., & Lance, C.E. (2008). Promoting fruit and vegetable consumptionin different lifestyle groups: Recommendations for program development based onbehavioral research and consumer media data. Health Marketing Quarterly, 25(1/2),66–96.


Deloitte, (2007). 2007 Deloitte volunteer IMPACT survey of Gen Y (18–26 year olds). Deloitte[online], Deloitte Development LLC. Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/us_comm_volunteerimpact_survey_results2007(2).pdf

De Pelsmacker, P., & Van Den Bergh, J. (1996). The communication effects of provocation inprint advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 15(30), 203–221.

Dickson, M.A. (2000). Personal values, beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes relating to intentionsto purchase apparel from socially responsible businesses. Clothing and Textiles ResearchJournal, 18(1), 19–30.

Eckman, M., Damhorst, M.L., & Kadolph, S.J. (1990). Toward a model of the in-store purchasedecision process: Consumer use of criteria for evaluating women’s apparel. Clothing andTextiles Research Journal, 8(2), 13–22.

Ellen, P.S., Mohr, L.A., & Webb, D.J. (2000). Charitable programs and the retailer: Do theymix? Journal of Retailing, 76(3), 393–406.

Farris, R., Chong, F., & Danning, D. (2002). Generation Y: Purchasing power and implicationsfor marketing. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 6(2), 89–101.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction totheory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Frazier, M. (2007, March 5). Costly Red campaign reaps meager $18 million. Advertising Age[online]. Retrieved April 21, 2007, from http://adage.com/abstract.php?article_id¼115287

Garcia, T. (2007, October 22). The spirit of generosity. PRWeek cause survey 2007. PRWeek[online]. Retrieved April 21, 2007, from http://www.barkleyus.com/pdf/cause_survey.pdf

The Gen Y Budget. (2002, July/August). American Demographics, 24(7), S4.Grau, S.L., & Folse, J.A.G. (2007). The influence of donation proximity and message-framing

cues on the less-involved consumer. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 19–33.Grazer, W.F., & Keesling, G. (1995). The effect of print advertising’s use of sexual themes on

brand recall and purchase intention: A product specific investigation of males’ responses.Journal of Applied Business Research, 11(3), 47–57.

Gupta, S., & Pirsch, J. (2006a). The company–cause–customer fit decision in cause-relatedmarketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(6), 314–326.

Gupta, S., & Pirsch, J. (2006b). A taxonomy of cause-related marketing research: Current findingsand future directions. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 15(1/2), 25–43.

Hair, J.F., Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Holmes, J.H., & Crocker, K.E. (1987). Predispositions and the comparative effectiveness ofrational, emotional and discrepant appeals for both high involvement and low involvementproducts. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 15(1), 27–35.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2005). Generation give and give and give: From the president of theUnited States to our national survey to these generational experts, the good news is out: Today’steens are helping others in record numbers. USAWeekend Today [online]. Retrieved February 26,2008, from http://www.usaweekendtoday.com/05_issues?050424/05042teen_ survey.html

Iwanow, H., McEachern, M.G., & Jeffrey, A. (2005). The influence of ethical trading policies onconsumer apparel purchase decisions: A focus on The Gap Inc. International Journal of Retailand Distribution Management, 33(5), 371–387.

Jayson, S. (2006, October, 24). Gen Y gets involved. USA Today [online]. Retrieved December10, 2007, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-23-gen-next-cover_x.htm

Kerr, W.C., Greenfield, T.K., Bond, J., Ye, Y., & Rehm, J. (2004). Age, period and cohortinfluences on beer, wine and spirits consumption trends in the US national alcohol surveys.Addiction, 99(9), 111–1120.

Kilmer & Kilmer, Inc. (2000). Beware of the male, 25 to 54: Branding efforts cannot ignore theyoung and old. Kilmer & Kilmer, Inc. [online]. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://www.kilmer2.com/annualreports/BA/06.htm

Krotz, J.L. (n.d.). Tough customers: How to reach Generation Y. Microsoft Small Business Center[online]. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://www.microsoft.com/smallbusiness/resources/marketing/market-research/tough-customers-how-to-reach-gen-y.aspx


Lafferty, B.A. (2007). The relevance of fit in a cause-brand alliance when consumers evaluatecorporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 447–453.

Lafferty, B.A., & Goldsmith, R.E. (2007). Cause–brand alliances: Does the cause help the brandor does the brand help the cause? Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 423–429.

Lafferty, B.A., Goldsmith, R.E., & Hult, G.T.M. (2004). The impact of the alliance of thepartners: A look at cause–brand alliances. Psychology and Marketing, 21(7), 509–531.

LaTour, M.S., & Henthorne, T.L. (1994). Ethical judgments of sexual appeals in printadvertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(3), 81–90.

Lavack, A.M., & Kropp, F. (2003). Consumer values and attitude toward cause-relatedmarketing: A cross cultural comparison. Advances in Consumer Research, 30(1), 377–378.

Loroz, P.S. (2006). The generation gap: A baby boomer vs. Gen Y comparison of religiosity,consumer values, and advertising appeal effectiveness. Advances in Consumer Research,33(1), 308–309.

Maciejewski, J.I. (2004). Is the use of sexual and fear appeals ethical?: A moral evaluation byGeneration Y college students. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 26(2),97–105.

Manstead, A.S.R. (2000). The role of moral norm in the attitude–behavior relationship. InD.J. Terry & M.A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms andgroup membership (pp. 11–30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mitchell, A.A., & Olson, J.C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator ofadvertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18(8), 318–332.

Morton, L.P. (2002). Targeting Generation Y. Public Relations Quarterly, 47(2), 46–48.Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CRS)

initiatives. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63–74.National Retail Federation. (2006). Gen Y chooses ‘7 For All Mankind’ as top denim brand,

according to RAMA survey. Press Release. National Retail Federation [online]. RetrievedOctober 30, 2007, from http://nrf.com/modules.php?name¼News&op¼viewlive&sp_id¼159

Noble, S.M., & Schewe, C.D. (2003). Cohort segmentation: An exploration of its validity.Journal of Business Research, 56(12), 979–987.

Noble, S.M., Haytko, D.L., & Phillips, J. (2009). What drives college-age Generation Yconsumers? Journal of Business Research, 62(6), 617–628.

Nunnally, C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.O’Donnell, J. (2006, October, 11). Gen Y sits on top of the consumer food chain. USA Today

[online]. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2006-10-11-retail-teens-usat_x.htm

O’Keefe, D.J. (1990). Persuasion: Theory and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Olsen, G.D., Pracejus, J.W., & Brown, N.R. (2003). When profit equals price: Consumer

confusion about donation amounts in CRM. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 22(2),170–180.

Paul, P. (2001). Getting inside Gen Y. American Demographics, 23(9), 42–49.Perlman, S., & Chang, K (2007, July 23). Cause marketing: How far can the quid pro quo go?

TheNonProfitTimes [online]. Retrieved April 22, 2008, from http://www.nptimes.com/07Jul/news-070723-1.html

Polonsky, M.J., & Wood, G. (2001). Can the over commercialization of CRM harm society?Journal of Macromarketing, 21(1), 8–22.

Pope, N.K.L.I., Voges, K.E., & Brown, M.R. (2004). The effect of provocation in the formof mild erotica on attitude to the ad and corporate image. Journal of Advertising, 33(1),69–82.

Randall, D.M. (1989). Taking stock: Can the theory of reasoned action explain unethicalconduct? Journal of Business Ethics, 8(11), 837–882.

Reichert, T. (2003). The prevalence of sexual imagery in ads targeted to young adults. Journal ofConsumer Affairs, 37(2), 403–412.

Reichert, T. (2007). The ageless allure: Sex, media, and marketing. Journal of ProductionManagement, 13(1/2), 3–11.


Reichert, T., & Carpenter, C. (2004). An update on sex in magazine advertising: 1983 to 2003.Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(4), 823–837.

Reichert, T., Heckler, S.E., & Jackson, S. (2001). The effects of sexual social marketing appealson cognitive processing and persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 13–27.

Rentz, J.O., & Reynolds, F.D. (1991). Forecasting the effects of an aging population on productconsumption: An age–period–cohort framework. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3),355–360.

Ross, J.K., III, Patterson, L.T., & Stutts, M.A. (1992). Consumer perceptions of organizationsthat use CRM. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(1), 93–97.

Ross, J.K., III, Stutts, M.A., & Patterson, L.T. (1990–1991). Tactical considerations for theeffective use of cause-related marketing. Journal of Applied Business Research, 7(2), 58–65.

Schewe, C.D., & Noble, S.M. (2000). Market segmentation by cohorts: The value and validityof cohorts in America and abroad. Journal of Marketing Management, 16(1–3), 129–142.

Schewe, C.D., Meredith, G.E., & Noble, S.M. (2000). Defining moments: Segmenting bycohorts. Marketing Management, 9(3), 48–53.

Sciglimpaglia, D., Belch, M.A., & Cain, R.F. (1979). Demographic and cognitive factorsinfluencing viewers’ evaluations of ‘sexy’ advertisements. Advances in Consumer Research,6(1), 62–65.

Sciulli, L.M., & Bebko, C. (2005). Social cause versus profit oriented advertisements: Ananalysis of informational content and emotional appeals. Journal of PromotionManagement, 11(2/3), 17–36.

Seckler, V. (2005, September 21). Why college students keep spending more. Women’s WearDaily, 190(63), 10.

Severn, J., Belch, G.E., & Belch M.A. (1990). The effects of sexual and non-sexual advertisingappeals and information level on cognitive processing and communication effectiveness.Journal of Advertising, 19(1), 14–22.

Soley, L., & Kurzbard, G. (1986). Sex in advertising: A comparison of 1964 and 1984 magazineadvertisements. Journal of Advertising, 15(3), 46–54, 64.

Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (2002). The role of moral judgments within expectancy–value-basedattitude–behavior models. Ethics and Behavior, 12(4), 299–321.

Stewart, H., & Blisard, N. (2008). Are younger cohorts demanding less fresh vegetables? Reviewof Agricultural Economics, 30(1), 43–60.

Streitematter, R. (2004). Sex sells!: The media’s journey from repression to obsession.Cambridge, MA: Westview Press.

Strom, S. (2007, December 13). Charity’s share from shopping raises concern. The New YorkTimes [online]. Retrieved December 13, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/13giving.html?_r¼2&th¼&oref¼slogin&emc¼th.

Todd, S., & Lawson, R. (2001). Lifestyle segmentation and museum/gallery visiting behavior.International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 6(3), 269–277.

Trimble, C.S., & Rifon, N.J. (2006). Consumer perceptions of compatibility in CRM messages.International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(3), 29–47.

Tsai, J.H. (2006). Lifestyle vs. demographics: Is lifestyle a better predictor of patronage behavior?Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007). Consumer expenditures in 2005. U.S. Department ofLabor Report [online]. Retrieved October 30, 2007, from http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann05.pdf

Varadarajan P.R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A co-alignment of marketingstrategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58–74.

Vezina, R., & Paul, O. (1997). Provocation in advertising: A conceptualization and an empiricalassessment. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14(2), 177–192.

Waters, J. (2006, October 11). Young, with tons of purchasing power: Gen Y, 82 million of them,influence family buying decisions. MarketWatch [online]. Retrieved January 11, 2008, from http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist¼newsfinder&siteidþgoogle&guid¼%7B10064A4A-D8EB-4D93-8E85-66721AAD8A43%7D&keyword¼


Webb, D.J., & Mohr, L.A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to CRM: From skeptics tosocially concerned. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17(2), 226–238.

Wiley, J.B., Krisjanous, J., & Cavana, E. (2007). An experimental study of female tweeners’evaluative beliefs regarding ads, attitude toward the ad, and purchase intent for fashionapparel. Young Consumers, 8(2), 119–127.

Wolburg, J.M., & Pokrywczynski, J. (2001). A psychographic analysis of Generation Y collegestudents. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(5), 33–52.

Xu, Y., & Paulins, V.A. (2005). College students’ attitudes toward shopping online for apparelproducts: Exploring a rural versus urban campus. Journal of Fashion Marketing andManagement, 9(4), 420–433.

Youn S., & Kim, K. (2008). Antecedents of consumer attitudes toward cause-related marketing.Journal of Advertising Research, 48(1), 123–137.

Zey, M. (1992). Criticisms of rational choice models. In M. Zey (Ed.), Decision-making:Alternatives to rational choice models (pp. 9–31). London: Sage.

Zimmerman, A., & Dahlberg, J. (2008). The sexual objectification of women in advertising: Acontemporary cultural perspective. Journal of Advertising Research, 48(1), 71–79.

About the Author

Karen H. Hyllegard is an associate professor in the Department of Design and Merchandising atColorado State University. Dr. Hyllegard’s research focuses on topics related to textile andapparel marketing, including: consumers’ adoption and purchase of products, services, and newtechnologies; international marketing and retailing; and socially responsible business practices,specifically in the area of advertising and promotion. She has published in Clothing and TextilesResearch Journal, Environment and Behavior, International Marketing Review, and Journal ofConsumer Behaviour.

Corresponding author: Karen H. Hyllegard, Associate Professor, Department of Design &Merchandising, 324 Gifford Bldg. (1574), Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado80523-1574.

T 970-491-4627E [email protected]

Ruoh-Nan Yan is an assistant professor in the Department of Design and Merchandising atColorado State University. She earned her PhD in retailing and consumer sciences with a minorin marketing from the University of Arizona. Her research interests are in the area of servicesretailing, sustainable retailing and consumption, and cross-cultural studies. She is a member ofthe Association for Consumer Research, the American Marketing Association, the Academy ofMarketing Science/American Collegiate Retailing Association, and the International TextileApparel Association. Her work has been published in International Journal of Retail andDistribution Management and Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management.

Jennifer Paff Ogle is an associate professor in the Department of Design and Merchandising atColorado State University. Dr Ogle’s program of research examines the ways in which meaningsabout appearances and bodies form within sociocultural contexts and through interpersonalinteractions. Recent inquiries include: exploration into media, family, and peer influences uponbody image; adolescent interpretations of advertising messages; and feminist readings of thebody. Dr Ogle is a Faculty Affiliate of the Women’s Interdisciplinary Studies Program at CSU andan active member of Educators for Socially Responsible Apparel Business. She has published inEnvironment and Behavior, Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, Journal of FashionMarketing and Management, and Sociological Inquiry.


Julianne Attmann (nee Trautmann), PhD, is a faculty member in the fashion retail managementprogram at the Art Institute of Colorado. Prior to moving to Colorado, Dr Attmann worked asan assistant professor at Illinois State University and Mississippi State University. Dr Attmann’sscholarship focuses on the social, cultural, and historical importance of dress within societies,especially as it relates to social responsibility. Dr Attmann’s current research interests include:analysing relationships among body image, disordered eating, and dress, as well as investigatingcompulsive clothing-buying behaviour. She has published in Family and Consumer SciencesResearch Journal, Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, and The Journal of Psychology.

T 303-837-0825 (ext. 2209)


Copyright of Journal of Marketing Management is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied

or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Y RESPOSE.pdf