Do the ends justify the means? How altruistic values moderate consumer responses to corporate social initiatives

JBR-08915; No of Pages 6 Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Do the ends justify the means? How altruistic values moderate consumer responses to corporate social initiatives☆ Grzegorz Zasuwa ⁎ Department of Economics and Management, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, al. Racławickie 14, 20-950 Lublin, Poland

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 1 June 2015 Received in revised form 1 January 2016 Accepted 1 February 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Corporate social initiatives Altruistic values Perceived motives Cause-related marketing

a b s t r a c t Corporate social initiatives typically have two objectives, which is to fulfill commitments to corporate social responsibility (CSR) and to improve corporate performance. However, the use of social causes for commercial purposes may raise consumers' concerns. Drawing on the human value theory and prior works on attributions of CSR efforts, this paper proposes a conceptual framework describing how human values may moderate consumer responses to perceived organizational motives behind social initiatives. The research hypotheses are empirically tested in the context of cause-related marketing, where the existence of profit motivation is most evident. The study findings show that individuals endorsing altruistic values do not consider the use of social causes in commercial activities to be a neutral activity. Contrary to non-altruistic individuals, altruists tend to respond negatively to perceived commercial motivation behind such initiatives. Thus, corporate social activities targeting altruistic individuals may be much riskier than the literature on prosocial behaviors suggests. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Corporate social initiatives constitute a diverse group of activities that companies carry out to support social causes and to accomplish commitments to corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Kotler & Lee, 2005). Companies undertaking such initiatives devote their resources to social causes not only to fulfill their obligations to society but also to obtain benefits (Smith, 2003). Thus, corporate involvement in social issues can be considered a win–win situation for society and the firm (Drumwright & Murphy, 2001). However, consumers and other stakeholders do not necessarily respond well to the use of social causes to leverage corporate performance. Berglind and Nakata (2005) provide several examples showing that corporate social initiatives may evoke consumer accusations that firms exploit social causes to increase sales or enhance profits. Such critical attention, in turn, may backfire, damaging a corporation's reputation (Yoon, Gürhan-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006). Thus, to avoid such accusations and increase the positive outcomes of these initiatives, marketing managers need to know who responds unfavorably to the use of social causes in pursuing business objectives. Despite the existence of ethical concerns related to the application of social causes in marketing activities, few studies address this issue. The vast majority of past research aims to prove that sincere engagement in

☆ The author thanks Carmen Valor and Piotr Bolibok for their valuable comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. This paper is based on a project 2011/01/D/HS4/ 05661 founded by the Polish National Science Centre. ⁎ Tel.: +48 506 345 012. E-mail address: [email protected].

a social cause is perceived as a virtue and is rewarded by consumers (e.g., Ellen, Webb, & Mohr, 2006). Regarding the perception of corporate social activities as profit-motivated undertakings, researchers typically assume that consumers accept such activities because firms are profitdriven entities in our society (e.g., Kim & Lee, 2012). In fact, diverse evaluation criteria exist. One person may consider a specific behavior to be morally unacceptable, while another person may perceive the behavior to be just and acceptable (Vitell & Muncy, 1992). This discrepancy prompts an important question: How do the perceptions of organizational motivation behind social initiatives influence the responses that different categories of consumers have to such activities? Answering this question can help managers more effectively target marketing programs for individuals who accept the commercial motivation of firms while avoiding segments of consumers who respond negatively to the self-serving motivation of firms. Accordingly, to answer this question, this research builds a framework grounded in the attribution, consumer ethics and human values literature. The research uses data from a survey of adult consumers to examine the hypotheses. The findings significantly contribute to the understanding of the role of perceived organizational motives in consumer response to marketing activities with a social dimension. Specifically, the results suggest that corporate social initiatives targeting altruists can be risky if consumers perceive them as motivated by profit. 2. Human values and consumer ethics To describe the moderating role of values in the association between attributions and consumer responses to corporate social initiatives, this research relies on Schwartz's (1992) theory of human values. This

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.034 0148-2963/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Zasuwa, G., Do the ends justify the means? How altruistic values moderate consumer responses to corporate social initiatives, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.034

2

G. Zasuwa / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

model is currently one of the best theoretically and empirically grounded theories of values (Cieciuch & Davidov, 2012). The value theory developed by Schwartz has received empirical support from numerous studies using data collected in more than 60 countries (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002). Schwartz (1994, p. 21) defines values as “desirable transsituational goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in the life of a person or other social entity”. He differentiates between the following 10 values: conformity, tradition, benevolence, universalism, self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, and security. These values are typically depicted as categories forming a circular continuum (Fig. 1). This circle includes two dimensions related to the major motivational forces. The first dimension expresses the conflict between openness to change and conservation values. The second dimension directly corresponds with self-serving and otherserving motives, as it includes self-transcendence values on one end of the continuum and self-enhancement on the other end. Selftranscendence values consist of universalism and benevolence, both of which represent the human desire to make the world a better place in which to live (Schwartz, 1994). With respect to self-enhancement values, their common denominator is that they attach great importance to personal well-being and superiority over others. This category of higher values includes power and achievement (Schwartz, 1992). As guiding principles, values influence attitudes and behaviors across a wide range of contexts (e.g., Bardi & Schwartz, 2003; Gregory, Munch, & Peterson, 2002; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). In the marketing literature, Gutman (1982) links values to perceived product attributes in a means-end chain model. Homer and Kahle (1988) report a hierarchical relationship between human values, attitudes, and behaviors. Similarly, Howard (1977) shows that values influence consumer behavior through beliefs, attitudes, and selection criteria. Thompson, Newman, and Liu (2014) demonstrate how values can influence brand loyalty. In addition, Allen and Ng (1999) suggest that values can directly influence product choice when individuals attend to a product's symbolic meaning. Because values guide behavior and decision making, Hunt and Vitell (1986) theorize that value systems play an important role in ethical decision making. Several studies provide empirical support for this association. For example, Steenhaut and Van Kenhove (2006) find significant relationships among human values, ethical ideology, and ethical beliefs. Their results indicate that consumers who attach more importance to self-transcendence relative to self-enhancement values are more likely be idealistic and less relativistic. In addition, they find a direct positive effect of conservation values on consumers' ethical beliefs. Al-Khatib, Dobie, and Vitell (1995) report that individuals who

Fig. 1. The Schwartz model of relations among human values. Source: S. H. Schwartz, Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 25, Academic Press Orlando 1992, p. 24.

are more idealistic react more negatively to situations in which some individuals obtain a benefit but others are harmed. However, highly relativistic individuals, unlike idealists, consider such situations to be tolerable. Similarly, Al-Khatib, Vitell, and Rawwas (1997) report that high levels of idealism are significantly related to a higher level of ethical concern about individuals who obtain a benefit at the expense of others. Consumer ethics studies also suggest that an individual's value systems are correlated with Machiavellianism. Jones and Paulhus (2009) find that individuals with a high Machiavellian orientation give high priority to self-transcendence values, including power, money and competition, and relatively low priority to self-transcendence values (i.e., community building, family concerns). Highly Machiavellian consumers also tend to be more tolerant of unethical or questionable actions, as they have a less negative perception of such actions (Al-Khatib, Vitell, Rexeisen, & Rawwas, 2005; Al-Khatib et al., 1997; Rawwas, 2001).

3. Hypotheses 3.1. Perceived organizational motives and responses to corporate social initiatives The significant role of attribution in marketing has been acknowledged since the 1970s, when academics applied this knowledge to explain consumer responses to advertising (e.g., Smith & Hunt, 1978). Attribution theory is currently used to understand consumer responses to socially oriented corporate activities. Studies report the types of motives that are attributed to firms (e.g., Ellen et al., 2006), when attributions are formed (e.g. Andreu, Casado-Díaz, & Mattila, 2015; Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006; Davis, 1994) and the consequences of these attributions (e.g., Kim & Lee, 2012; La Ferle, Kuber, & Edwards, 2013). In the early studies, the conceptualization of firm motivation was simplistic, with self-serving motives measured in opposition to otherserving motives within a single dimension (e.g., Barone, Miyazaki, & Taylor, 2000). Ellen et al. (2006) find that CSR attributions are more complex than expected. In general, consumers simultaneously attribute self-serving and other-serving motives to firms (e.g., Yoon et al., 2006). However, individuals assume that firms engage in CSR activities with the primary goal of obtaining business benefits and the secondary goal of benefitting society (Ellen et al., 2006). Several studies demonstrate that perceived organizational motives play an important role in consumer responses to divergent corporate social initiatives. Specifically, past studies suggest that the perception of other-serving motives is likely to positively influence outcomes of prosocial activities, while the perception of self-serving motives tend to have a neutral effect or decrease the effectiveness of such activities (Forehand & Grier, 2003; Kim & Lee, 2012; Yoon et al., 2006). For example, Szykman, Bloom, and Blazing (2004) report a positive relationship between beliefs that a firm's motives are altruistic and consumer attitudes toward advertisement. Similarly, Yoon et al. (2006) find that CSR activities improve a company's image when consumers attribute sincere motives to the company. When the motives behind CSR activities are perceived as insincere, the company's image may be damaged. Regarding self-serving motives, consumers view corporate social initiatives as simply another promotional activity (Ellen et al., 2006). Thus, consumers may legitimize profit-motivated giving because corporate survival requires companies to attract and maintain customers (Vlachos, Tsamakos, Vrechopoulos, & Avramidis, 2009). In this line, Kim and Lee (2012) find that customers are willing to accept commercial motivation behind a social program when such activities are conducted by a firm operating in a stigmatized industry if they believe that the firm is sincere in supporting a social cause. Bearing in mind the above considerations, this study proposes:

Please cite this article as: Zasuwa, G., Do the ends justify the means? How altruistic values moderate consumer responses to corporate social initiatives, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.034

G. Zasuwa / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

H1. Other-serving attributions positively influence consumer responses to social initiatives, including initiative evaluation and purchase intentions. H2. Self-serving attributions have a neutral effect on consumer responses to social initiatives, including initiative evaluation and purchase intentions.

3.2. The moderating role of human values Consumer acceptance of the use of social causes to improve business performance is not absolute. Vlachos et al. (2009) find that egoisticdriven and strategic-driven attributions have negative effects on word of mouth and purchase intentions when consumers are suspicious of the business and the non-profit world. Similarly, Walker, Heere, Parent, and Drane (2010) report a negative association between strategy-driven attributions and repeat purchases when an organization's behavior is perceived as being potentially unethical. Deshpande and Hitchon (2002) indicate that a social initiative loses its effectiveness when firms use it as a tool to reduce negative publicity. All these findings suggest that the negative effects of self-serving attributions are not driven simply by the belief that a firm is using social causes to improve performance but, rather, are based on the perception that the firm is acting in a hypocritical or unethical manner. Given the moderating role of corporate hypocrisy, it is worth noting that each behavior is a function of a person and a situation (Lewin, 1936). Thus, not only can external settings influence the relationship between beliefs about firm motives and the outcomes of socially responsible initiatives but also consumer characteristics may play an important role in these associations. However, few studies explicitly address this issue despite wide acknowledgement that the practice of using social causes to enhance commercial performance is morally questionable (e.g., Eikenberry, 2009). Given that consumers have different moral standards, it follows that what is unacceptable to one person may not be unacceptable to another person. When considering the role of human values in the relationship between perceived organizational motivation and consumer responses to social initiatives, one can observe that other-serving attributions and self-transcendence values are congruent. The perception that a firm is engaging in a socially responsible initiative to help people in need is likely to be positively evaluated by consumers with high levels of selftranscendence because individuals who endorse these values focus on the welfare of others (Schwartz, 1992). By contrast, self-enhancement values are incongruent with perceived other-serving motives because these values involve placing personal interests above concern for others. The positive impact of self-transcendence is also in line with extant research on prosocial behavior. For example, in their meta-analysis, Boer and Fischer (2013) indicate that self-transcendence values most strongly correlate with prosocial attitudes, whereas self-enhancement values negatively influence an individual's prosocial attitudes. Selftranscendence also increases consumer expectations regarding legal, ethical, and philanthropic corporate responsibilities (Golob, Lah, & Jancic, 2008). Given the above discussion, the study hypothesizes that a greater endorsement of self-transcendence values relative to self-enhancement values (hereafter, strong resultant self-transcendence) may moderate the relationship between perceived other-serving motives behind corporate social initiative and consumer responses to such an initiative. H3. The positive influence of other-serving attributions on consumer responses to social initiatives is greater for consumers with strong resultant self-transcendence values. Meanwhile, individuals who attach great importance to selftranscendence values may be more likely to express negative attitudes toward a firm and its activities when they believe that the firm is

3

engaging in a prosocial initiative to improve performance. As previously noted, an individual's moral ideology is strongly associated with his/her value orientations. Specifically, resultant self-transcendence has a positive effect on idealism (Steenhaut & Van Kenhove, 2006). Highly idealistic individuals tend to respond negatively to situations in which some individuals may obtain a benefit at the expense of other people, such as cases in which a particular firm supports social causes to increase its profitability or enhance its reputation. In the same line, research on consumer Machiavellianism demonstrates that individuals high in self-transcendence values respond negatively to morally questionable actions (e.g., Jones & Paulhus, 2009). Exploiting social causes in commercial activities can be perceived as an ethically problematic practice (Berglind & Nakata, 2005; Eikenberry, 2009). Thus, this study posits that individuals endorsing altruistic values (i.e., strong resultant self-transcendence values) would not accept self-serving motivations to justify corporate social activities. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is formulated: H4. For consumers with strong resultant self-transcendence values, self-serving attributions negatively influence responses to corporate social initiatives.

4. Methods 4.1. Empirical context Commercial outcomes and motivation may be more or less visible depending on the type of initiative. For example, cause-related marketing (CRM) is a type of prosocial activity in which a social cause is used to enhance sales. In a typical CRM campaign, the firm supports a particular charity or cause only when consumers purchase its products (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). By contrast, the nature of corporate philanthropy is unconditional help or aid, for example, a firm donates money or other resources to support a specific need or cause without explicitly expecting any benefits in return (e.g., Smith, 1994). Given the objective of this paper, the study uses CRM as the research context. The use of worthy causes in CRM campaigns as a means to enhance sales generates debate regarding the campaigns' cause-beneficial or cause-exploitative nature; thus, such campaigns are suitable for the examination of perceived motives behind corporate social initiatives (Vlachos et al., 2009). The empirical context of this study is a real CRM campaign that was launched by a local firm operating in the food industry (a noodle producer). The objective of this campaign was to generate financial support for the Christian charity “Caritas.” According to the concept of CRM, the firm pledged to donate to the charity every time a consumer purchased one of the products designated with a special label. 4.2. Procedure and sample To test the research hypotheses, the study uses data collected from a survey carried out during a larger research project. The main objective of this survey was to examine the role of consumer characteristics in consumers' responses to a real corporate social initiative. For logistic and financial reasons, the survey activities were carried out in one of the largest Polish cities. The survey activities were carried out in the respondents' residence and followed a uniform scheme. A random sample of 2000 residents and their addresses was purchased from a public statistic services provider. Ultimately, five hundred and twelve individuals participated in the survey, representing 25.6% of the whole sample. Three hundred and sixty-four respondents were female (71%). All respondents were between the ages of 18 and 88 years. The average survey participant was 47 years of age. Regarding education, 43% of the subjects had achieved a secondary education, and 40% had obtained higher education beyond the secondary level.

Please cite this article as: Zasuwa, G., Do the ends justify the means? How altruistic values moderate consumer responses to corporate social initiatives, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.034

4

G. Zasuwa / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

The shares of respondents with a vocational or primary education were relatively low at 10% and 5%, respectively. The remaining 2% of respondents did not reveal information regarding their education.

Table 1 Multiple regression analysis for entire sample. Model

4.3. Questionnaire The questionnaire included items measured using either a 7-point semantic differential scale or a 7-point Likert-type scale. Three semantic differential scale items developed based on the work of Miniard, Bhatla, and Rose (1990) were used to measure CRM program evaluation. The items were anchored with the statements: “I like it very much”/“I do not like it at all,” “I fully support it”/“I don't support it at all,” and “I find it valuable”/“I find it worthless.” The internal consistency of these items was found to be reliable (α = 0.92). Purchase intention was measured by a single scale item anchored with “I will certainly buy it/I will definitely not buy it” (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). The perceived motives for undertaking corporate social initiatives were measured using six items modified from Rifon, Choi, Trimble, and Li (2004). The respondents were asked to specify the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements provided. Regarding other-serving motives, respondents were asked to take a standpoint on the following statements: “The company undertakes this campaign to help those in need”, “The company undertakes this campaign to give something back to the community”, and “The company sincerely cares about needy people when it supports Caritas” (α = 0.71). To measure CRM campaigns' self-serving motives, the following statements were included: “The company undertakes this campaign to build a positive image”, “The company undertakes this campaign to increase its sales”, and “The company undertakes this campaign to achieve competitive advantage” (α = 0.78). To measure personal values, the study used the 21-item version of the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ21). Each item in this scale consists of two statements. One of the two statements assesses beliefs, and the other statement assesses the aspirations of a hypothetical individual. The respondent's task is to specify the extent to which the description of the hypothetical person is similar to him or her. Considering the research hypotheses, the research used only scale items conceptualizing the self-transcendence–self-enhancement dimension. Self-transcendence comprised universalism and benevolence items (α = 0.67), whereas self-enhancement included items representing power and achievement (α = 0.80). Because the priority of this research is to examine the impacts of pure higher-order value types, hedonism was excluded from the analysis as it shares elements with both openness and self-enhancement (Schwartz, 1996). The scores for the resultant self-transcendence values were obtained by subtracting the mean self-transcendence values score from the mean selfenhancement values score (Feather, 1995). 5. Results To test the first two hypotheses, the research uses a standard multiple regression analysis. Consistent with H1, the results indicate that the perception that a firm has other-serving motives positively influences social initiative evaluation (B = 0.45, p b .001) and purchase intentions (B = 0.43, p b .001) in the general population. In addition, consistent with predictions (H2), consumer beliefs that a firm is engaging in prosocial initiatives for self-serving reasons do not negatively influence campaign results (Table 1). To test the moderating effects of altruistic values (i.e., selftranscendence values), the research employs the dichotomization strategy. Although this approach is not currently recommended for moderation analysis, the study uses this strategy because of theoretical concerns. Past research shows that the effects of human values are not linear. Values influence attitudes and behaviors only when they are highly endorsed by individuals (Verplanken & Holland, 2002). Thus, to differentiate individuals who prioritize altruistic values from subjects who do

Unstandardized coefficients

Standard coefficients

B

Beta

SE

Dependent variable: initiative evaluation (Constant) 3.740 .323 Other-serving motive .449 .044 Self-serving motives −.019 .046 R .418 R2 (adjusted R2) .175 (.171) F(2,510) 52.535

.417 −.016

t

11.571 10.226 −.404

Significance

.000 .000 .687

.000

Dependent variable: purchase intention (Constant) 2.958 .525 Other-serving motive .432 .071 Self-serving motives −.046 .074 R .264 R2 (adjusted R2) .070 (.060) F(2,510) 18.723

.261 −.026

5.633 6.064 −.613

.000 .000 .540

.000

not recognize such values, this study divides the subjects into two groups. Individuals with high levels of resultant self-transcendence (i.e., strong resultant self-transcendence) have average value ratings above 3.7 points (2.1 M + 1.54 SD), whereas the average ratings of those with low levels of resultant self-transcendence are under 0.6 points (2.1 M–1.54 SD). To test the differences between coefficients in regression equations, the research uses the Chow test (Dougherty, 2011). The formula for the calculation of the Chow test statistic is F Chow ¼

RSSC  ðRSS1 þ RSS2 Þ=k ðRSS1 þ RSS2 Þ=ðN 1 þ N2  2kÞ:

where RSSC is the residual sum of squares from the combined data, RSS1 is the residual sum of squares from group 1, and RSS2 is the residual sum of squares from group 2. k represents the number of estimated regression parameters, and N1 and N2 represent the number of observations in the two groups. The resulting test statistic follows the Fisher– Snedecor distribution with k and N1 + N2 − 2 k degrees of freedom. Table 2 contains all the data for performing Chow tests. These tests support the conceptual framework by indicating that the regression

Table 2 ANOVA summary tables and Chow tests.

Model

Sum of squares

df

Dependent variable: initiative evaluation H ST group Regression 11.647 2 Residual 39.974 57 Total 51.620 59 L ST group Regression 23.667 2 Residual 84.725 74 Total 108.392 76 Pooled groups Regression 37.743 2 Residual 137.177 134 Total 174.920 136 Chow test: F(3.131) = 100.442, p = 0.000 Dependent variable: purchase intention H ST group Regression 32.689 2 Residual 146.459 58 Total 179.148 60 L ST group Regression 32.242 2 Residual 241.656 76 Total 273.899 78 Pooled groups Regression 68.243 2 Residual 436.979 137 Total 505.221 139 Chow test: F(3.134) = 106.115, p = 0.000

Mean square

F

Significance

5.823 .701

8.304

.001

11.834 1.145

10.336

.000

18.871 1.024

18.434

.000

16.344 2.525

6.473

.003

16.121 3.180

5.070

.009

34.121 3.190

10.698

.000

Note: H ST = high level of resultant self-transcendence values, L ST = low level of resultant self-transcendence values.

Please cite this article as: Zasuwa, G., Do the ends justify the means? How altruistic values moderate consumer responses to corporate social initiatives, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.034

G. Zasuwa / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

5

Table 3 Multiple regression analysis for high versus low resultant self-transcendence groups. Model

High resultant self-transcendence group B

Dependent variable: initiative evaluation (Intercept) 5.999 Other-serving motives .273 Self-serving motives −.239 R .475 .226 (.198) R2(adjusted R2) Dependent variable: purchase intention (Intercept) 5.183 Other-serving motives .423 Self-serving motives −.408 R .427 R2 (adjusted R2) .182 (.154)

SE

Low resultant self-transcendence group t

Sign.

B

.705 .103 .081

8.508 2.649 −2.971

.000 .010 .004

2.780 .513 .064 .467 .219 (.197)

1.317 .190 .153

3.935 2.233 −2.675

.000 .029 .010

.352 .569 .211 .343 .118 (.094)

models for individuals with high and low levels of self-transcendence values differ in terms of social initiative evaluation (FChow(3131) = 100.442, p b .001) and purchase intentions (FChow(3134) = 106.115, p b .001). Although subjects with high levels of resultant self-transcendence values are more likely to believe that a firm implement social initiative to support a social cause compared with individuals with low levels of resultant self-transcendence (M = 5.4 vs. M = 4.9, t(138) = 2.49, p b .05), this perception does not generate the expected benefits for social program outcomes. More specifically, the results in Table 3 indicate that self-transcendence values may decrease the positive association between other-serving attributions and consumer responses to social initiatives. Thus, H3 is not supported in terms of social initiative evaluation or purchase intentions. With respect to self-serving motives, the results indicate that both those who value self-transcendence and those who do not value self-transcendence values attribute these motives to firms to the same degree (M = 4.8 vs. M = 5.1, t(142) = − 1.13, p N .05). However, consistent with H4, the perceived commercial motivation behind a social initiative does not have a neutral effect for individuals who attach great importance to the welfare of others (i.e., strong resultant selftranscendence). The belief that a firm is engaging in a social initiative to enhance performance decreases altruistic individuals' evaluation of the initiative (B = − 0.239, p b .01) and, thus, reduces their purchase intentions (B = − 0.408, p b .05). Because non-altruistic individuals accept the commercial motivation behind this initiative, this type of attribution does not influence their initiative evaluation (B = 0.064, p N .05) or purchase intentions (B = 0.211, p N .05).

SE

t

Sign.

.862 .113 .121

3.226 4.536 .529

.002 .000 .599

1.414 .187 .199

.249 3.048 1.062

.804 .003 .291

credibility. This paper shows smaller effects of altruistic attributions for individuals with high levels of self-transcendence values compared with the effects for non-altruists. This finding is surprising because self-transcendence values are positively correlated with prosocial behaviors (Boer & Fischer, 2013). One explanation for this result could be idealism of consumers who strongly endorse altruistic values. Idealists do not accept the practice of using social causes to leverage corporate performance (Golob et al., 2008). Thus, the association between other-serving attributions and CRM responses is smaller in the group of altruists compared with the group of non-altruists. Another explanation refers to the nature of CRM. Gneezy, Imas, Brown, Nelson, and Norton (2012) conclude that “costless” prosocial behaviors do not allow individuals to interpret such activities as signals of their prosocial identity. The self-perception of being less prosocial may, in turn, result in a reduction in subsequent prosocial acts. Therefore, it is possible that the act of purchasing products linked to “costless”

6. Discussion and implications The findings of this study support the thesis that altruistic values can moderate the relationship between attributions and individual responses to corporate social initiatives. The findings provide new insight into consumer responses to CSR efforts. The most important contribution of this paper is that it demonstrates that for altruistic consumers the perception of self-serving motives can negatively influence the outcomes of corporate social initiatives (Fig. 2). Indeed, previous studies emphasize that altruists respond most favorably to prosocial (e.g., De Pelsmacker, Driesen, & Rayp, 2005) and proenvironmental (e.g., Collins, Steg, & Koning, 2007) corporate activities. This research suggests that consumers who attach great importance to resultant self-transcendence values do not accept socially responsible initiatives motivated by commercial gain. The second contribution is that the paper complements the research showing a moderating role of human values on consumer responses to CSR efforts. Bigné-Alcañiz, Currás-Pérez, and Sánchez-García (2009) demonstrate that resultant self-transcendence strengthens the positive relationship between other-serving motives for CRM and brand

Fig. 2. Interaction plots for the moderating effect of resultant self-transcendence values. Note: H ST = high level of resultant self-transcendence values, L ST = low level of resultant self-transcendence values.

Please cite this article as: Zasuwa, G., Do the ends justify the means? How altruistic values moderate consumer responses to corporate social initiatives, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.034

6

G. Zasuwa / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

charitable donations does not allow altruistic individuals to realize their values. In addition to their theoretical contributions, the findings have practical implications. The marketing literature clearly acknowledges that CSR efforts do not always benefit companies and that such efforts can occasionally backfire (Berglind & Nakata, 2005). This paper suggests that corporate social initiatives targeting altruistic individuals can be risky for companies because individuals attaching high importance to the welfare of others respond negatively to the exploitation of social causes in commercial activities. Thus, to decrease the risk of appearing self-aggrandizing, marketing managers should minimize the commercial aspects of programs targeting altruistic individuals. Previous studies show that such a strategy can be achieved, for example, by increasing corporate donations (Yoon et al., 2006).

References Al-Khatib, J. A., Dobie, K., & Vitell, S. J. (1995). Consumer ethics in developing countries: An empirical investigation. Journal of Euromarketing, 4(2), 87–109. Al-Khatib, J. A., Vitell, S. J., & Rawwas, M. Y. A. (1997). Consumer ethics: A cross-cultural investigation. European Journal of Marketing, 31(11/12), 750–767. Al-Khatib, J. A., Vitell, S. J., Rexeisen, R., & Rawwas, M. (2005). Inter-country differences of consumer ethics in Arab countries. International Business Review, 14(4), 495–516. Allen, M. W., & Ng, S. H. (1999). The direct and indirect influences of human values on product ownership. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 5–39. Andreu, L., Casado-Díaz, A. B., & Mattila, A. S. (2015). Effects of message appeal and service type in CSR communication strategies. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1488–1495. Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207–1220. Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 248–262. 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. Berglind, M., & Nakata, C. (2005). Cause-related marketing: More buck than bang? Business Horizons, 48(5), 443–453. Bigné-Alcañiz, E., Currás-Pérez, R., & Sánchez-García, I. (2009). Brand credibility in causerelated marketing: The moderating role of consumer values. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18(6), 437–447. Boer, D., & Fischer, R. (2013). How and when do personal values guide our attitudes and sociality? Explaining cross-cultural variability in attitude–value linkages. Psychological Bulletin, 139(5), 1113–1147. Cieciuch, J., & Davidov, E. (2012). A comparison of the invariance properties of the PVQ-40 and the PVQ-21 to measure human values across German and Polish Samples. Survey Research Method, 6(1), 37–48. Collins, C. M., Steg, L., & Koning, M. A. (2007). Customers' values, beliefs on sustainable corporate performance, and buying behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 24(6), 555–577. Davis, J. J. (1994). Good ethics is good for business: Ethical attributions and response to environmental advertising. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(11), 873–885. De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 363–385. Deshpande, S., & Hitchon, J. C. (2002). Cause-related marketing ads in the light of negative news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(4), 905–926. Dougherty, C. (2011). Introduction to econometrics. Oxford University Press. Drumwright, M. E., & Murphy, P. E. (2001). Corporate societal marketing. Handbook of marketing and society, 162–183. Eikenberry, A. M. (2009). The hidden costs of cause marketing. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 7(3), 51–55. Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157. Feather, N. T. (1995). Values, valences, and choice: The influence of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1135–1151. 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. Gneezy, A., Imas, A., Brown, A., Nelson, L. D., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Paying to be nice: Consistency and costly prosocial behavior. Management Science, 58(1), 179–187. Golob, U., Lah, M., & Jancic, Z. (2008). Value orientations and consumer expectations of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 83–96.

Gregory, G. D., Munch, J. M., & Peterson, M. (2002). Attitude functions in consumer research: Comparing value–attitude relations in individualist and collectivist cultures. Journal of Business Research, 55(11), 933–942. Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60–72. Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value–attitude– behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 638–646. Howard, J. A. (1977). Consumer behavior: Application and theory. NewYork: McGraw-Hill. Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6, 5–16. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. (2009) In M. R. Leary, & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 257–273). Guilford Press. Kim, S., & Lee, Y. J. (2012). The complex attribution process of CSR motives. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 168–170. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility. Doing the most good for your company and your cause. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ. La Ferle, C., Kuber, G., & Edwards, S. M. (2013). Factors impacting responses to causerelated marketing in India and the United States: Novelty, altruistic motives, and company origin. Journal of Business Research, 66(3), 364–373. Lewin, K. (1936). In F. Heider, & G. M. Heider (Eds.), Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Trans. Miniard, P. W., Bhatla, S., & Rose, R. L. (1990). On the formation and relationship of ad and brand attitudes: An experimental and causal analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 290–303. Rawwas, M. Y. A. (2001). Culture, personality and morality: A typology of International consumers' ethical beliefs. International Marketing Review, 18(2), 188–209. Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. M., Trimble, C. S., & 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., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The big five personality factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 789–801. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Vol. 438, New York: Free press. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 1–65. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45. Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying the theory of integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values: The Ontario Symposium, 8 (pp. 1–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 550–562. Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243. Smith, C. (1994). The new corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 72(3), 105–116. Smith, C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California Management Review, 45(4), 52–76. Smith, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (1978). Attributional processes and effects in promotional situations. Journal of Consumer Research, 149–158. Steenhaut, S., & Van Kenhove, P. (2006). An empirical investigation of the relationships among a consumer's personal values, ethical ideology and ethical beliefs. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(2), 137–155. Szykman, L. R., Bloom, P. N., & Blazing, J. (2004). Does corporate sponsorship of a sociallyoriented message make a difference? An investigation of the effects of sponsorship identity on responses to an anti-drinking and driving message. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1–2), 13–20. Thompson, F. M., Newman, A., & Liu, M. (2014). The moderating effect of individual level collectivist values on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 67(11), 2437–2446. Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. The Journal of Marketing, 58–74. Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 434–447. Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An empirical investigation of factors influencing ethical judgments of the final consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(8), 585–597. Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A. P., & Avramidis, P. K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 170–180. Walker, M., Heere, 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. Yoon, Y., Gürhan-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.

Please cite this article as: Zasuwa, G., Do the ends justify the means? How altruistic values moderate consumer responses to corporate social initiatives, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.034