Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274256011

DeterminantsofConsumerAttributionsofCorporateSocialResponsibility

ArticleinJournalofBusinessEthics·February2015

DOI:10.1007/s10551-015-2578-4

CITATIONS

12

READS

981

3authors:

Someoftheauthorsofthispublicationarealsoworkingontheserelatedprojects:

DynamicPricingandEcommerceViewproject

CSRandCompetitivenessViewproject

LonginosMarínRives

UniversityofMurcia

26PUBLICATIONS531CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

PedroJesúsCuestasDíaz

UniversityofMurcia

18PUBLICATIONS260CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

SergioRomán

UniversityofMurcia

56PUBLICATIONS945CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

AllcontentfollowingthispagewasuploadedbySergioRománon31March2015.

Theuserhasrequestedenhancementofthedownloadedfile.

Determinants of Consumer Attributions of Corporate SocialResponsibility

Longinos Marın • Pedro J. Cuestas •

Sergio Roman

Received: 3 October 2012 / Accepted: 13 February 2015

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract Prior research has found attributions to mediate

the relationship between the elements of corporate social

responsibility (CSR) activities and consumer responses to

firms; however, the question of what variables determine

consumer attributions of CSR remains partially unaddressed.

This article analyzes why consumers make attributions of

CSR that are either positive (values-driven or strategic

motives), or negative (stakeholder-driven or egoistic mo-

tives). The results obtained from two empirical studies

(n = 197, n = 222) indicate that company–cause fit, cor-

porate ability, and interpersonal trust have a positive influ-

ence on the motives that consumers attribute to CSR,

whereas corporate hypocrisy has a negative effect. This re-

search contributes to our understanding of the psychological

mechanisms underlying impactful consumer judgments and

provides guidance for organizations in responding to such

evaluations.

Keywords CSR � Consumer behavior � Attributions �Ethics

Introduction

Currently, companies are undertaking many social initiatives,

which usually entail allocating company resources to social

purposes. A growing interest in corporate social responsibility

(CSR) is apparent in both practice and research when dis-

cussing how business corporations integrate social demands

into their operations to boost stakeholders. The positive link

between CSR and consumer patronage has made managers

realize that CSR is not only an ideological imperative but also

an economic imperative in today’s marketplace (Bhattacharya

and Sen 2004; Jia and Zhang 2014).

Past research has demonstrated that socially responsible

actions enhance corporate reputation and image (Hur et al.

2014; Saeidi et al. 2015; Turban and Greening 1997). CSR

activity can, however, backfire on a company if consumers

become suspicious and infer that the company’s true mo-

tive for CSR activity is merely to sell more products rather

than acting on behalf of its consumers (Cui et al. 2003;

Yoon et al. 2006). CSR activity can also backfire if it is

perceived as distracting a company from its ability to

produce quality products (Brown and Dacin 1997). In re-

cent decades, for example, consumers have learned about

the pitfalls of greenwashing, as many environmental claims

of green products are neither true nor transparent in the

market (Nyilasy et al. 2014). One way of considering how

consumers view a company’s CSR activities is through

attribution theory. This theory provides a well-developed

approach for describing how people make causal infer-

ences about a company’s behavior (Folkes 1984). Attri-

bution is a cognitive process in which people indicate a

cause or explain a certain event (Kelly 1973). Research has

suggested that certain attributions can directly influence

consumers’ behavioral intentions and attitudes.

Purchase intent (Ellen et al. 2006), repeat patronage

(Vlachos et al. 2009), and recommendation intentions

(Walker et al. 2010), for example, have all been sig-

nificantly influenced by the motives that consumers assign

to CSR initiatives. Combining insights from management

L. Marın (&) � P. J. Cuestas � S. Roman

Facultad Economıa y Empresa, Universidad de Murcia,

Murcia, Spain

e-mail: longinos@um.es

P. J. Cuestas

e-mail: pcuestas@um.es

S. Roman

e-mail: sroman@um.es

123

J Bus Ethics

DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2578-4

and business ethics research, Swanson (1995) proposes

three principal motivations for companies to engage in

CSR: economic, positive duty, and negative duty.

The different motivations in consumer responses to CSR

actions have also been analyzed (e.g., Becker-Olsen et al.

2006; Sen et al. 2006; Ellen et al. 2006). However, the issue of

the ‘‘conditions [under which] consumers may perceive a CSR

action as self-interested’’ remains partially unaddressed (Gao

2009, p. 270), and the question of how consumers attribute the

motivation for a firm’s CSR activity has received little at-

tention (Yoon et al. 2006). Yet, it would be relevant to aca-

demics and marketers to understand the effects of CSR

initiatives on consumers’ attributions of CSR and therefore to

understand their attitudes and behaviors. Consumers support

companies of which they have positive CSR perceptions (or

beliefs); for instance, the results of the 2013 CSR RepTrak 100

study show that 73 % of the 55,000 consumers surveyed were

willing to recommend companies perceived to be delivering

on CSR. Thus, the key antecedents of CSR attributions appear

to be an important area of research because they provide a

better understanding of the psychological mechanisms un-

derlying these impactful consumer judgments and provide

guidance for organizations on how to respond to them.

We propose a framework that analyzes the effect of

company–cause fit, corporate ability, corporate hypocrisy,

and interpersonal trust on consumer attributions of CSR. We

follow Ellen et al.’s (2006) typology of attributions as posi-

tive—values-driven and strategic—or negative—stakehold-

er-driven and egoistic—motives. We predict that company–

cause fit, corporate ability, and interpersonal trust will have

positive effects on consumer attributions of CSR (values-

driven and strategic motives). In the case of corporate

hypocrisy, we expect a positive effect on negative consumer

attributions (egoistic and stakeholder-driven motives).

The structure of this article is as follows. First, we present

a review of the literature on CSR and attribution theory and

propose hypotheses relating to the variables of the study

(company–cause fit, corporate ability, corporate hypocrisy,

and interpersonal trust). Second, we test the model via two

experiments: in Study 1, we use a 2 (high/low company–

cause fit) 9 2 (high/low corporate ability) experimental

design, and in Study 2, we use a 2 (high/low interpersonal

trust) 9 2 (high/low corporate hypocrisy) experimental de-

sign. Finally, the implications of the findings are discussed,

and avenues for further research are suggested.

Determinants of Consumers’ Csr Attributions

CSR

CSR plays an important role in corporate outcomes, in-

cluding reputation, corporate and brand evaluations,

purchase intentions, and customer identification with a

company (e.g., Brown and Dacin 1997; Gurhan-Canli and

Batra 2004; Lichtenstein et al. 2004; Mohr and Webb

2005; Saeidi et al. 2015). CSR can assume many forms,

such as philanthropy, cause-related marketing, environ-

mental responsibility, and humane employee treatment.

Regardless of the form that they take, CSR efforts are

generally intended to portray an image of a company as

responsive to the needs of the society on which it depends

for survival.

One of the most fundamental findings of previous CSR

research is that an organization’s stakeholders (e.g., em-

ployees, customers, investors, and the public) will reward

companies that are deeply engaged in CSR causes in dif-

ferent ways (Sen et al. 2006). Customers represent a sig-

nificant stakeholder group whose responses to CSR have

attracted much academic attention. In general, consumers

applaud altruistic corporate behaviors that are beneficial for

all of society in the long term rather than merely benefitting

the organization itself, and they tend to reward those efforts

(Marin et al. 2009). However, research has also shown that

CSR may cause negative reactions in consumer behavior,

such as skepticism or lower purchase intentions in some

scenarios (Sen and Bhattacharya 2001; Wagner et al.

2009). In this sense, Carrigan and Atalla (2001) highlight

the phenomenon of consumers punishing companies’

unethical behavior; however, although consumers may be

willing to punish unethical firm behavior, they might be

less willing to reward ethical behavior, especially if such

behavior entails greater costs. Wagner et al. (2009) analyze

the effects of the communications strategies that firms can

use to mitigate the effects of inconsistencies with respect to

consumer perceptions of corporate hypocrisy as well as

corporate beliefs and associations regarding a firm’s social

responsibility and attitudes toward the firm. Their findings

reveal that perceived hypocrisy damages consumers’ atti-

tudes toward firms by negatively affecting CSR beliefs.

CSR Attributions

Consumers’ perceptions of the motives of companies to

engage in CSR also play an essential role in their responses

to CSR (Ellen et al. 2006). Attribution theory proposes that

individuals aim to predict and control what occurs around

them (Heider 1958). In a climate of limited trust, all deeds

may be heavily scrutinized, thus yielding more complex

assessments of motives. When expectations are not met,

people ‘‘give much thought to ‘why questions’’ (Fein 1996,

p. 165) and generate more sophisticated attributions. Be-

cause consumers show little confidence and trust in busi-

nesses, CSR efforts to demonstrate ‘‘good citizenship’’

might promote such attention. While many suggest that

inconsistency or duality is difficult for consumers to

L. Marın et al.

123

reconcile, Williams and Aaker (2002) argue that when

consumers are presented with persuasive communications,

they are capable of accepting and synthesizing apparently

contradictory information when making judgments rather

than relying on more simplistic, bipolar views. These au-

thors report that positive and negative emotional reactions

co-occur when individuals are exposed to ads with mixed

emotional appeals.

Corporate motives of CSR have been discussed as a major

variable explaining consumers’ reactions to CSR (Forehand

and Grier 2003; Menon and Kahn 2003; Sen et al. 2006;

Webb and Mohr 1998). Combining insights from the re-

search on management and business ethics, Swanson (1995)

proposes three principal motivations for companies to engage

in CSR: economic, positive duty, and negative duty. Eco-

nomic motives usually focus on management researchers and

incorporate a firm’s performance objectives, such as sales,

profit, and return on investment. The duty-aligned perspec-

tives are usually adopted by ethical researchers, and these

perspectives focus on corporate moral behaviors and the

associated obligations to society. Positive duty recognizes

that a company may be involved in CSR to help others,

whereas negative duty holds that a company’s motivation

may be an exercise in restraint to meet stakeholder expec-

tations. Maignan and Ralston (2002) identify motives similar

to those highlighted by Swanson (1995) in their review of

companies’ self-presentation on web reports, renaming them

as performance-driven, values-driven, and stakeholder-dri-

ven, respectively. Becker-Olsen et al. (2006) also study the

various motivations of consumer responses to CSR actions.

When motivations are considered firm serving or profit re-

lated, attitudes toward organizations are likely to be negative;

however, when motivations are considered socially moti-

vated or society/community focused, attitudes toward such

organizations are likely to be enhanced. We follow the

classification of companies’ motivations proposed by Ellen

et al. (2006), who identify four different motivations: (1)

egoistic motives related to exploiting the cause rather than

helping it, (2) strategic motives that support the attainment of

business goals (e.g., increased market share, creating positive

impressions) while benefiting the cause, (3) stakeholder-

driven motives related to supporting social causes solely

because of pressure from stakeholders, and (4) values-driven

motives related to benevolence-motivated giving. Ellen et al.

(2006) divide these driving motives into two groups, de-

pending on their effect on consumers’ purchase intentions.

There are two positive motives: values-driven and strategic;

and two negative motives: egoistic and stakeholder-driven.

In terms of positive motives in the attribution process of

consumers’ reactions to CSR actions, consumers are likely

to accept attributions of values-driven motives because they

consider firms to be acting with sincere and benevolent in-

tentions (Vlachos et al. 2009). Likewise, consumers believe

that firms design CSR actions because they care and tend to

view CSR activities as deriving from a company’s moral

behavior. Values-driven motives affect consumers’ recom-

mendation intentions; they are sufficient motivation for

consumers to speak positively of a company.

The Proposed Framework

To create a clear and parsimonious framework, we propose

the integration of these different factors into one model

(shown in Fig. 1). Following similar procedures for

proposing a model in the company–consumer context (Sheth

and Parvatiyar 1995), motives that induce positive consumer

interpretations of CSR could be derived from company be-

havior (corporate ability or company–cause fit), the indi-

vidual (interpersonal trust), or the context (corporate

hypocrisy). We expect that individuals make positive attri-

butions (values-driven or strategic) about CSR when a

company has expertise and tradition, when the fit between

CSR cause and the activity of the company is high, and

when the consumer is an individual with a high level of

interpersonal trust (i.e., is not suspicious of the intentions of

other people or companies). Moreover, individuals will

make negative attributions (egoistic or stakeholder-driven)

when they perceive hypocrisy in a company’s behavior.

Marketers need to understand how these variables affect

consumers’ attributions of CSR activities and initiatives as

well as the variables affecting their responses and may wish

to adapt their CSR strategies if our findings suggest changes

in their activities and CSR actions. Understanding how cor-

porate associations influence consumer product responses

would increase marketers’ ability to manage crucial deci-

sions, such as determining which types of associations to

emphasize in the introduction and positioning of new prod-

ucts (Brown and Dacin 1997).

Fig. 1 Framework of consumer attributions of CSR

Determinants of Consumer Attributions of CSR

123

Development of Hypotheses

Company–Cause Fit

Simmons and Becker-Olsen (2004) define the fit between a

cause and a brand as strong when the two are perceived as

congruent, where congruity is derived from the mission,

products, markets, technologies, brand concepts, or other

key associations. Thus, fit is the adaptation of CSR ac-

tivities with respect to the principal activity of a company.

The issue of company–cause fit has been widely discussed

in the literature on consumer reactions to cause-related

marketing (e.g., Barone et al. 2007; Hoeffler and Keller

2002; Ellen et al. 2006). For instance, Barone et al. (2007)

show that the effects of retailer–cause fit are moderated by

consumer perceptions of the retailer’s motive for engaging

in cause-related marketing and by the affinity that con-

sumers feel toward the social cause component of the

campaign. Drawing from the brand extension literature,

company–cause fit is positively related to evaluations of a

firm’s brand (Pracejus and Olsen 2004), to the evaluation

of cause-related marketing strategies (Boush and Loken

1991) and to the evaluation of the sponsoring company

(Rifon et al. 2004; Zdravkovic et al. 2010).

This stream of research is based on cognitive dissonance

theory (Festinger 1957), which explains that people are

motivated to act in ways that are consistent with their be-

liefs, values, and perceptions when there is a psychological

inconsistency or disagreement between two pieces of in-

formation. This inconsistency produces a dissonance that

leads people to question their beliefs or values and stimu-

lates uncomfortable feelings. Thus, when the company–

cause fit is strong, the company focuses its CSR strategy on

activities and initiatives aligned with its core company

values. In this case, it may be easier for a consumer to

consider the beneficial effects for society. It is also easier to

manage social actions on a level or within an industry that

is known and close to a firm’s everyday working business.

Individuals tend to associate CSR with the mission, vision,

values, and long-term strategy of a company. When the

company–cause fit is low, the relationship between the core

activities of the company is not clear, and individuals may

attribute different explanations to CSR. For example, the

principle behind the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty is to

celebrate the natural physical variations embodied by all

women and to inspire them to have the confidence to be

comfortable with these variations. As part of this cam-

paign, Dove started the Dove Self-Esteem Fund, which

aims to change the Western concept of beauty from ultra-

thin models with ‘‘perfect’’ features to making every girl

(and woman) feel positive about her appearance (www.

dove.com). Consumers are likely to attribute this CSR

initiative to values-driven or strategic motives (rather than

to egoistic or stakeholder-driven motives) in a context of

strong company–cause fit. Based on this reasoning, we

propose the following:

H1 Company–cause fit has a positive effect on positive

(values-driven and strategic) CSR motives.

Corporate Ability

Corporate ability (CA) refers to a company’s expertise in

producing and delivering its output (Brown and Dacin

1997). A company following a CA positioning strategy will

focus on the expertise of its employees; the superiority of

internal research and development; and the resulting

technological innovation, manufacturing expertise, cus-

tomer orientation, and industry leadership, among other

characteristics. Such a strategy serves to build or reinforce

associations related to the company’s products and ser-

vices. Consumers might also learn CA associations from

prior experiences with a company, word-of-mouth com-

munication, or media reports (Brown and Dacin 1997). In

this sense, CA includes not only product quality but also

attributes such as innovativeness and customer orientation.

This information has a positive influence on people’s be-

havioral intentions regarding a company’s products, stocks,

and jobs and moderates the effect of CSR on people’s in-

tentions (Berens et al. 2007).

The marketing literature has also demonstrated that

consumers consider both performance-related corporate

associations and perceived social responsibility when

forming an impression of a company (Winters 1988). In

particular, a reputation based on corporate ability sig-

nificantly influences the overall corporate evaluation

(Brown and Dacin 1997). Moreover, the contribution of

CSR to a company’s attractiveness is much stronger than

the contribution of CA (Marin and Ruiz 2007), perhaps

because of increasing competition in the context of de-

creasing CA-based variation in the marketplace.

However, the average citizen is facing growing diffi-

culty in terms of being able to distinguish between com-

panies that are genuinely dedicated to making a difference

and those that use a green curtain to conceal dark motives

(Munshi and Kurian 2005). Greenwashing, for example,

means that significant money or time has been spent ad-

vertising being green rather than spending resources on

environmentally sound practices.

Past literature has explicitly studied the conditions under

which CSR has a stronger influence on the preferences of

stakeholders (e.g., Backhaus et al. 2002; Garcia de los

Salmones et al. 2005; Orlitzky et al. 2003). The experiment

of Berens et al. (2007) shows that when information on a

company’s CA is personally important to people, such as

when they believe that doing business with a company with

L. Marın et al.

123

poor CA could result in financial loss and when good CSR

is not able to compensate for poor CA. In such a case, CSR

has a significant effect on purchase intentions only when

CA is high, not when CA is low. This finding suggests that

having a good CA is a necessary precondition for positive

consumer responses. Based on this reasoning, we expect

that CSR initiatives by companies with good reputations

and CA will be better understood and will generate positive

reactions from consumers. Thus, we propose the following

hypothesis:

H2 Corporate ability has a positive effect on positive

(values-driven and strategic) CSR motives.

Interpersonal Trust

Interpersonal trust is a psychological state comprising the

intention to accept vulnerability based on the positive ex-

pectations of the intentions or behavior of another person

(Rousseau et al. 1998). Trust refers to an individual’s re-

liance on another party (individual or collective) under

conditions of dependence and risk. Because trust develops

over time (Lewicki and Bunker 1996), the level of trust that

an individual has in an object will differ depending on

when trust is assessed.

According to Bhattacharya et al. (1998), researchers in

different disciplines have viewed trust through various di-

mensions: personality psychologists tend to view trust as an

individual characteristic, whereas social psychologists

generally view it from the perspective of the behavioral

expectations of others involved in transactions. People may

or may not be unsuspecting; people who trust in others are

likely to be trusting in all fields of their lives, whereas

people who are not trusting tend to mistrust all people and

entities in their lives. In an environment of limited trust,

people attempt to examine all of the actions of a person or

entity, thus yielding more complex assessments of motives

(Fein 1996).

In 2006, the General Electric Foundation website an-

nounced a five-year grant of $20 million to Cincinnati

Public Schools (CPS) to improve teaching and learning in

math and science (www.gefoundation.com). Depending on

the personal characteristics of the individuals receiving this

message, some people would have thought that GE was

genuinely a philanthropic and good company, whereas

others might have thought about the true reasons behind the

announcement, such as compensating for damage caused in

Cincinnati or favoring the public interests of the governors

of Cincinnati.

Consumers with a high level of interpersonal trust will

tend to believe the propositions and offers made by com-

panies through advertising, messages, or projects. Con-

sumers whose trust is high are more likely to associate CSR

with value-driven and strategic motives. However, if an

individual has low interpersonal trust in a company, then

all of that company’s actions and communications will be

treated with suspicion. Hence, the motives inferred about,

or behind, the actions could range from selling products

and attracting investments to lobbying local governors, for

example. Considering this reasoning, we propose one effect

of trust on positive attributions and one additional and

negative effect on negative CSR attributions:

H3a Interpersonal trust has a positive effect on positive

(values-driven and strategic) CSR motives.

H3b Interpersonal trust has a negative effect on negative

(egoistic and stakeholder-driven) CSR motives.

Corporate Hypocrisy

Consumer knowledge about a company includes con-

sumers’ perceptions and beliefs about relevant company

characteristics (e.g., values, climate) as well as their reac-

tions to the company, including emotions and evaluations

(Bhattacharya and Sen 2003). Research on social cognition

and memory has established that people actively organize

their perceptions of other persons in their memories using

abstract trait categories (Srull and Wyer 1979); such ab-

stract categories may also be used to classify corporate

associations. Similar to perceptions of persons, these

categories may correspond to different personality traits

(Srull and Wyer 1979).

We follow Wagner et al.’s (2009) work in defining

corporate hypocrisy as the belief that a firm claims to be

something that it is not. In this sense, corporate hypocrisy

refers to an individual’s assessment of a company based on

certain information, experience, or other stimuli. As CSR is

related to transparency, accountability, and active compli-

ance, consumers who perceive a company as hypocritical

will negatively evaluate the company and its CSR

practices.

Relative to other forms of corporate communications

and tactics, CSR messages are more likely to be viewed

with suspicion by consumers (Barone et al. 2007). Re-

search suggests that consumer inferences about the intent

underlying a company’s use of CSR can result in percep-

tions that the company’s efforts are either cause-beneficial

or cause-exploitative (cf. Drumwright 1996). In the latter

instance, suspicion surrounding the company’s decision to

employ CSR campaigns can prompt consumers to question

how genuine or sincere the company’s efforts are with

respect to helping the cause (Fein et al. 1990).

In a context of public suspicion and distrust in which

discrepancies between CSR talk and action are regarded as

sources of hypocrisy and potential threats to organizational

credibility and legitimacy, the call for consistency seems to

Determinants of Consumer Attributions of CSR

123

be an appropriate prescription. Wagner et al. (2009) warn

of the negative effect resulting from consumer perceptions

of corporate hypocrisy. Their research suggests that when

CSR communications precede revelations of a company’s

violation of CSR principles, the negative effect is even

stronger than the effect of a more reactive company CSR

strategy. Christensen et al. (2013) suggest that differences

between talk and action may be essential dimensions of

ongoing organizational CSR engagement.

In conclusion, when a corporation behaves in a manner

that is perceived as socially responsible, consumers are

likely to infer that the company has certain desirable traits

that resonate with their sense of self (Lichtenstein et al.

2004). These organizations seek to reinforce their le-

gitimacy and to embody qualities that they believe are

particularly valued by stakeholders. In these situations,

consumers will attribute this information to values or

strategic behaviors (positive attributions). Thus, organiza-

tions, like people, may be perceived as demonstrating

hypocrisy in the presence of inconsistent information re-

garding their own statements and observed behaviors

(negative attributions). Based on this reasoning, we pro-

pose the following:

H4 Corporate hypocrisy has a positive effect on negative

(egoistic and stakeholder-driven) CSR motives.

Methodology

The model is tested in the context of a computer service

company through two studies; the samples included 197

(study 1) and 222 (study 2) undergraduate students, re-

spectively, from one university in Spain. Fictitious ads for

a new branch of a computer and technological company

were created to yield the manipulations. In both studies, all

participants were asked to imagine that ‘‘Your PC Store’’

had recently opened a location that was as convenient for

them as their current store and offered the same quality,

price, and service. Claims were made about high quality,

low prices, and modern, convenient locations in the four

treatment ads.

Study 1

Design and Procedure

Study 1 was a 2 (high/low company–cause fit) 9 2 (high/low

corporate ability) between-subjects field experiment. Each

participant was asked to read a scenario and was shown a

randomly assigned fictitious ad (shown in Box 1 in the ap-

pendix). Preliminary versions of the questionnaire were ad-

ministered to a convenience sample of 18 individuals, and

pretest1 results were used to improve the measures and de-

sign an appropriate structure for the questionnaire. To

minimize product or quality differences, the first pretest

indicated that ‘‘Your PC Store’’ met the criteria of providing

a frequently purchased product that is a necessity for most

consumers and operating in a parity market. We made a

second pretest with 34 individuals and two causes were se-

lected from eight causes that were described as important to

most of the people who were asked. ‘‘Your PC Store’’ was

perceived to fit best with a cause that provided for ‘‘donating

second-hand computers to an orphanage in our community’’

(M = 5.42) and was perceived as a low fit for a cause

seeking to ‘‘donate money to save the Iberian lynx’’2

(M = 3.99); the t test was significant (t = 3.57). High CA

was stated as follows: ‘‘They care about their products’

quality, and they have the skills to commercialize their

products, thus obtaining better consumer satisfaction than

their competitors. In short, it has an excellent price-quality

relationship and a complete service’’ (M = 7.37). Low CA

was represented as follows: ‘‘They do not obtain optimal

market results through commercializing their products,

although they do have an advantage over their competitors.

In short, they have a bad price-quality relationship and poor

service’’ (M = 6.65); the t-test was significant (t = 2.67).

Therefore, manipulation checks confirmed the effectiveness

of the fit and corporate ability manipulations.

Measures

We measured values-driven, strategic, egoistic, and stake-

holder-driven attributions with a scale from Ellen et al.

(2006). To assess company–cause fit, one item from Sen-

gupta et al. (1997) was used. To measure CA, we used

Berens et al.’s (2007) scale. All items were measured using

a 10-point Likert scale (see Table 3 in the appendix).

Reliability was tested by examining the Cronbach’s al-

pha coefficients. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were

found to range from 0.86 (values-driven) to 0.71 (egoist

attribution) and thus exceeded Nunnally’s (1978) threshold

value (see Table 4 in the appendix). Following the proce-

dures suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981), convergent

and discriminant validity was tested using confirmatory

factor analysis. A comparison of the average variance ex-

tracted by each construct to the shared variance between

the construct and all other variables was used to test for

discriminant validity. For each comparison, the explained

variance exceeded all combinations of shared variance. As

a result, the scales showed acceptable discriminant validity.

1 The questionnaire pretest showed that it was easier for the

respondents to position themselves on a 0–10 scale than on a 1–7

scale.2 The Iberian lynx is emblematic of endangered species in Spain.

L. Marın et al.

123

Convergent validity was assessed by verifying the sig-

nificance of the t values associated with the parameter es-

timates. All t values were positive and significant

(p \ 0.01). As a result, the scales showed acceptable

convergent validity.

Study 1 Results and Discussion

A series of multiple regression analyses was performed to

determine whether the propositions developed in this study

received empirical support. The main results of the regres-

sion models used to test H1 and H2 are shown in Table 1.

Regarding company–cause fit (H1), our results reveal a

positive relationship with values-driven motives (ß = 0.32,

t = 5.20); however, contrary to expectations, we found no

positive relationship with strategic motives (ß = -0.05,

t = -0.71). Regarding CA, the results show a positive re-

lationship with value-driven motives (ß = 0.36, t = 5.82)

and with strategic motives (ß = 0.25, t = 3.54); thus con-

firming H2.

To test the potential interaction effect between the in-

dependent variables (fit and corporate ability), we per-

formed a series of hierarchical moderated regression

analysis in two steps with two models (Bell et al. 2004).

Model 1 tested the dependent variable hypothesized main

effects, and Model 2 included the main effects plus the

interaction between the independent variables. We mean-

centered all the main effects variables to minimize the

threat of multicollinearity in equations that included in-

teraction terms (Aiken and West 1991). All of the results

indicate that the interaction effect was non-significant;

therefore, our proposed models were validated against the

interaction effects between the independent variables.

Regarding the effect of cause fit, extant research also

shows that CSR has a positive effect on consumers’ pur-

chase intentions only when consumers are interested in and

supportive of the CSR activity. This idea complements the

research on social communication as well as Drumwright’s

(1996) findings of a positive relationship between the affi-

nity or attitudes held by key constituents toward the cause

and the perceived likelihood of the campaign’s success. Our

results reinforce the findings of Lafferty et al. (2004), as the

perception of fit between the brand and associated stimuli

(i.e., social cause) is one of the main antecedents of the

persuasive capacity of company communications.

Another reason for positive consumer attributions is that

CSR communications indicate the company has a high CA.

While Berens et al. (2005, p. 233) conclude that ‘‘For

product preferences, a poor CA could not be compensated

by a good CSR, at least when people thought that CA is

personally relevant to them’’, our findings contribute to

explaining this trade-off.

We provide further empirical evidence to the idea out-

lined by Lai et al. (2010), who propose that corporate

reputation is a mediator in the relationship between CSR

and brand performance; that is, performance gain is a

necessary prerequisite to attaining an adequate reputation.

Overall, this evidence suggests that consumers find it dif-

ficult to believe in CSR communications from companies

with low CA.

The contribution of the study regarding the combination

of these two antecedents, fit and CA, confirms findings

from Bigne et al. (2010). More specifically, if consumers

perceive that a company has skill and experience in pro-

ducing a certain category of product and if this product

category is functionally compatible with the aims of the

social cause, then the company appears more competent in

the context of its partnership with this cause.

Study 2

Design and Procedure

In the second study, we used the same fictitious ads as

those used in Study 1, but in this case, the ads were created

to yield a 2 (high/low interpersonal trust) 9 2 (high/low

corporate hypocrisy) between-subjects field experiment in

which we manipulated interpersonal trust and corporate

hypocrisy. Consistent with previous social psychology re-

search, we manipulated interpersonal trust and corporate

Table 1 Multiple linear regression analysis (study 1)

Dependent variables Values-driven attribution Strategic attribution Egoistic attribution Stakeholder-driven attribution

ß t value ß t value ß t value ß t value

Main effects

Company–Cause Fit 0.32 5.20*** -0.05 -0.71n.s. -0.15 -2.05** 0.23 3.26***

Corporate Ability 0.36 5.82*** 0.25 3.54*** 0.00 0.05n.s. 0.09 1.20n.s.

R2 0.296 0.060 0.030 0.073

F 40.77*** 6.15*** 3.23** 7.68***

n.s. not significant

* p \ 0.10; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01

Determinants of Consumer Attributions of CSR

123

hypocrisy following the manipulation of the former inde-

pendent variable by Dirks (1999). Each participant was

asked to read a scenario and was shown a randomly as-

signed fictitious ad with the new paragraph containing

these manipulations (Box 1 in appendix). We used the ad

with high fit and high CA. This included a final paragraph

with the manipulations of interpersonal trust and corporate

hypocrisy. Regarding the manipulation of the first variable,

the condition of high interpersonal trust was manipulated in

the following sentences: ‘‘A recent study published by

Corporate Press indicates that consumers believe that

people are reliable and will not take advantage of you. In

fact, entrusted people will do well in life because they trust

them’’ (M = 2.61). The condition of low trust condition

was manipulated using the following sentences: ‘‘A recent

study published by Corporate Press indicates that con-

sumers believe that people are unreliable and will take

advantage of you. In fact, entrusted people will not do well

in life because they are cheated’’ (M = 2.55); the t-test was

not significant. High corporate hypocrisy was manipulated

using the following passage: ‘‘Furthermore, ‘Your PC

Store’ has recently appeared in a news release in the local

press, which reveals that ‘Your PC Store’ wasn’t honestly

involved in corporate social responsibility activities and

that the store portrays an unrealistic image. In short, ‘Your

PC Store’ does CSR activities to look good but does not

actually do what it says’’ (M = 4.11). By contrast, low

corporate hypocrisy was indicated by the following pas-

sage: ‘‘Furthermore, ‘Your PC Store’ has recently appeared

in a news release in the local press, which reveals that

‘‘Your PC Store’’ is truly involved in corporate social re-

sponsibility activities and that the image shown is real. In

short, ‘Your PC Store’ sincerely engages in CSR and ac-

tually does what it says it does’’ (M = 2.9); the t test was

significant (t = 5.53).

Measures

We measured value-driven, strategic, egoistic, and stake-

holder-driven attributions with the same scale used in

Study 1, drawn from Ellen et al. (2006). CSR hypocrisy

was measured with five items from Wagner et al.’s (2009)

scale (see Table 3 in the appendix). Interpersonal trust was

measured using a scale from Tokuda et al. (2008).

Following the same procedure used in Study 1, re-

liability was measured by examining Cronbach’s alpha

coefficients. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were found

to range from 0.86 (value-driven and strategic) to 0.72

(corporate hypocrisy) and thus exceeded Nunnally’s (1978)

threshold value (see Table 5 in the appendix). To verify

convergent and discriminant validity, we performed the

procedure of Fornell and Larcker (1981), as explained in

Study 1. The results indicate that the scales showed ac-

ceptable discriminant and convergent validity.

Study 2 Results and Discussion

Similar to Study 1, a series of multiple regression analyses

were performed to determine whether the propositions de-

veloped in this study received empirical support. In this

section, we present the main results of the regression models

used to test H3a, H3b, and H4 (Table 2). Regarding inter-

personal trust (H3a, H3b), our results show a positive rela-

tionship with value-driven motives (ß = 0.32, t = 5.30);

this finding confirms the proposed relationship in H3a.

Contrary to expectations, we found no positive relationship

with strategic motives (ß = -0.05, t = -0.78). In the case

of the negative relationship between interpersonal trust and

the negative motives proposed in H3b, we found a non-

significant relationship with egoistic attribution (ß = 0.04,

t = 0.61) and a positive relationship with stakeholder-driven

attribution (ß = 0.30, t = 4.70), thus rejecting H3b.

Regarding corporate hypocrisy, our results show a

positive relationship with egoistic motives (ß = 0.36,

t = 5.67) and stakeholder-driven motives (ß = 0.14,

t = 1.98); which confirm H4.

In this case, we also test (Table 2) the potential inter-

action effect between the independent variables (interper-

sonal trust and hypocrisy) following the same procedure as

that used in Study 1. All of the results indicate that the

Table 2 Multiple linear regression analysis (study 2)

Dependent variables Values-driven attribution Strategic attribution Egoistic attribution Stakeholder-driven attribution

ß t value ß t value ß t value ß t value

Main effects

Interpersonal trust 0.323 5.30*** -0.05 0.78n.s. 0.04 0.61n.s. 0.30 4.70***

Corporate hypocrisy -0.36 -5.97** -0.39 -6.29*** 0.36 5.67*** 0.14 1.98**

R2 0.20 0.153 0.135 0.117

F 27.88*** 19.81*** 17.153*** 14.47***

n.s. not significant

* p \ 0.10; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01

L. Marın et al.

123

interaction effect was non-significant; therefore, our pro-

posed models were validated against the interaction effects

of the independent variables.

Our research contributes to the literature on CSR and

attribution theory by demonstrating a use of corporate

hypocrisy that has not previously been explored. Previous

research suggests that hypocrisy mediates the effect of the

presentation order of inconsistent CSR information on the

attitudes toward a firm (Wagner et al. 2009). We add that

corporate hypocrisy contributes to consumers’ egoistic and

stakeholder attributions. Organizations, like people, may be

perceived as demonstrating hypocrisy when inconsistent

information about their own statements and observed be-

haviors emerges. Consumers build on their perceptions of

the distinct characteristics exhibited by a person (or an or-

ganization), such as hypocrisy, to form broader evaluations

or assessments (Anderson 1971). Thus, following the results

of Study 2, consumers infer that companies conduct CSR

solely to gain benefits, such as to sell more products, to

improve their image, and to reinforce their employees’

identification with the company. This result is consistent

with the contention that the proliferation of ethical and green

claims by companies, some of which appear in the ‘‘sin

industries’’ category, has contributed to growing consumer

skepticism of such CSR communications and greenwashing

(Jahdi and Acikdilli 2009). Our research stemmed from the

idea that companies should care about CSR communica-

tions. Specifically, we addressed the question of key vari-

ables that should be managed to encourage positive

attributions of CSR communications by consumers.

Our research extends extant research on the benefits of

interpersonal trust on group performance (Dirks 1999), ex-

change performance (Zaheer et al. 1998), and consumer–

company identification (Bhattacharya and Sen 2003). Con-

sumers who are naturally skeptical of company CSR ini-

tiatives and believe them to be profit motivated (Trimble and

Rifon 2006) seek cues to legitimate the firm’s socially re-

sponsible intentions (Forehand and Grier 2003). This idea

reinforces the positive effect of company credibility in the

market. Trust refers to an individual’s reliance on a com-

pany under conditions of dependence and risk; therefore, as

company credibility and reliance increase, there is a greater

probability of attributing the company’s CSR initiatives to

value-driven motives. The results obtained by Bigne et al.

(2010) indicate that company’s trustworthiness or sincerity

represents a key indicator for consumer judgments about

whether a company is credible in its social responsibility

intentions. When consumers perceive a company as trust-

worthy in its association with a social cause, they may

identify with the company and more positively evaluate it.

In this sense, according to Du et al. (2010), firm-serving

motives in a company’s CSR message will actually enhance

the credibility of its CSR communications and inhibit

stakeholder skepticism, which underlies the potential

boomerang effect of CSR communication. Thus, companies

should frankly acknowledge that their CSR endeavors are

beneficial to both society and themselves.

Contrary to expectations, our results show that interper-

sonal trust has a positive effect on stakeholder-driven attri-

butions. Consumers may consider a company to have a

strong stakeholder orientation and thus to use CSR to achieve

stakeholder-related objectives. Consumers may think that a

high-level stakeholder orientation helps the organization to

ensure that the stakeholders will continue to provide the

necessary organizational resources. This view relates to the

concept of legitimacy, which is a generalized perception or

assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper,

or appropriate within some socially constructed system of

norms, values, beliefs, and definitions (Suchman 1995).

Conclusions, Limitations, and Further Research

This research analyzes how several key variables drive

consumer attribution motives. Understanding how the dif-

ferent elements in the structure of CSR affect consumer

processing and response is important for academics, prac-

titioners, and policymakers. The main contribution is the

integration of several variables—corporate ability, com-

pany–cause fit, interpersonal trust, and corporate hypoc-

risy—into a framework and the analysis of their effect on

positive (value-driven and strategic) and negative (egoistic

and stakeholder-driven) consumer CSR motives.

Consumers make positive attributions (value-driven and

strategic) of CSR when there is a strong fit between the

company and the social cause and when the company

shows high CA. Moreover, CSR is perceived positively by

individuals with a high level of interpersonal trust; such

individuals usually trust (are not suspicious of) other peo-

ple and companies. However, consumers attribute CSR to

egoistic and stakeholder-driven motives when they per-

ceive hypocrisy.

Consumers do not always view company behavior

positively in relation to CSR; in this situation, they may

attribute this behavior to motives such as self-interest, op-

portunism, and selling strategies. Consumers who make

negative attributions about CSR activity (i.e., that the CSR is

serving corporate self-interest) will not respond positively to

the corporate image and products. In some cases, such

consumers may even respond negatively. It should be noted

that communicating CSR to consumers is not always

straightforward. For example, the promotion of CSR ac-

tivities as opportunities to save money (i.e., self-oriented

value) can be less effective than using a combination of

appeals. Allen (1982) finds that a self-oriented appeal in

conservation contexts is actually less successful than a

Determinants of Consumer Attributions of CSR

123

message that appeals to normative duties (i.e., a combination

of functional and social values).

Following Ellen et al.’s (2006) schema of attributions, our

research contributes to CSR attribution research by clarifying

the antecedents of attributions of CSR actions. Previous re-

search has suggested that certain attributions can directly

influence consumers’ behavioral intentions and attitudes. For

example, both purchase or recommendation intentions (Ellen

et al. 2006) are significantly influenced by the motives that

consumers assign to a CSR initiative. Most consumers

ascribe mixed motives to corporate engagement in CSR and

view companies in a positive light when they credit CSR-

related efforts to a combination of values and strategic at-

tributions (Ellen et al. 2006; Vlachos et al. 2009). In addition

to its contributions to marketing theory, this research pro-

vides important implications for marketing managers, who

face competing demands for resources dedicated to CSR

initiatives. By linking CSR activities with increased cus-

tomer value or by developing new sources of customer value,

companies gain competitive advantages and competitive-

ness. Thus, managers need to understand how CSR activities

can affect their customers’ overall perceptions of value from

the firm by attributing a positive motive to CSR initiatives. It

is necessary to select causes that the company knows and can

manage and resolve in the long term. To secure consumers’

trust, marketing communications could provide details about

how a firm’s CSR programs have helped the company to

solve social (and local) problems by emphasizing results and

sustainability rather than merely introducing the form and

input of their CSR activities. CSR initiatives are difficult to

manage and must be implemented carefully to avoid con-

sumer skepticism. Nevertheless, from a managerial per-

spective, the findings presented here should be considered

supportive of companies that have chosen to engage in CSR

as well as companies that are considering doing so.

Our results are tempered by certain limitations, which

provide fertile opportunities for further research. Future

studies should collect data from a greater number of indus-

tries to study the mechanism of consumers’ CSR responses

and the differences in this mechanism among various product

categories. To make the sample more representative, future

research should increase the sample size as well as the pro-

portion of higher income and older participants. Thus, future

studies on the perceptions and consequences of corporate

hypocrisy across various industries would be highly relevant,

particularly from an intercultural perspective.

Another limitation relates to a manipulation check of in-

terpersonal trust. As Johansen et al. (2013, p. 1187) indicate,

interpersonal trust ‘‘is based on early trust-related experiences

… [which] develop into general beliefs about other people

who eventually take the form of a trait or personality char-

acteristic.’’ We manipulated interpersonal trust by giving

consumers one piece of information that was aggregated with

early experiences; however, as Bilsky and Schwartz (1994)

indicate, personality traits are affected by personal values

(which are more durable and stable over time), previous ex-

periences, and current experiences. Therefore, a new experi-

ence (the manipulation of trust) can affect the interpersonal

trust trait, but it is quite difficult to modify a personality trait,

such as interpersonal trust. Moreover, beyond interpersonal

trust, an array of potentially influential consumer personality

traits remains to be studied. For example, a need for cognition

(Cacioppo and Petty 1982) could induce an individual to

search for additional information beyond simple CSR-related

messages from the media. Another interesting personality trait

to analyze would be social identity complexity (Roccas and

Brewer 2002); that is, individuals with high social identity

complexity may be able to better understand CSR because

they have a better understanding of the possible (in)com-

patibility of economic and social or environmental goals.

Although the underlying experimental approach provides

crucial first insights into the effects of CSR information, the

external validity of the suggested dynamics of the variables

could be strengthened by follow-up field research. The sce-

narios investigated here do not provide an exhaustive repre-

sentation of all existing communication patterns that can be

encountered in the marketplace.

Appendix

See Tables 3, 4, and 5

A local chain store specialist in software and hardware opens a new store in a very popular mall, thus becoming one of most important

specialist retailers in hardware nationwide

The 26th ‘‘Your PC Store’’ will soon open in your neighborhood. This store is part of the national ‘‘Your PC Store’’ chain and will be the first

to open in this metropolitan area. According to the company’s press department, the store will employ at least 86 people and will occupy

more than 1,100 square meters

The company was borne from the efforts of two new graduates in 2000, John Holmes and Anthony Stacks. ‘‘Your PC Store’’ is characterized

by the personal relationship between the seller and its customers, good prices, and excellent customer service

In May of 2005, ‘‘Your PC Store’’ initiated its expansion plans for the entire national territory, starting in two major cities. As the two main

stores proved profitable, John and Anthony decided to convert their company into a franchise. Working with the franchise model, the ‘‘Your

PC Company’’ brand can be offered to investors wanting to own a profitable and stable business

Box 1: Experiment with a fictitious ad in a newspaper (high fit and high CA manipulation)

L. Marın et al.

123

Table 3 Items and scales

Scale Items Std. Coeff.

(t value)

[study 1]

Std. Coeff.

(t value)

[study 2]

Fit (Sengupta et al. 1997) The fit of the partnership between the firm and the cause 1 (n.a.)

Corporate ability ‘‘Your PC Store’’ has a lot of expertise in the area of computer

services

0.91 (12.85)

Berens et al. (2007) ‘‘Your PC Store’’ is skilled in what they do 0.74 (10.40)

Corporate hypocrisy ‘‘Your PC store’’ acts hypocritically 0.80 (12.20)

Wagner et al. (2009) What ‘‘Your PC Store’’ says and does are two different things 0.56 (7.54)

‘‘Your PC Store’’ pretends to be something that it is not 0.80 (12.32)

Interpersonal trust Would you say that most people can be trusted? 0.77 (12.25)

Tokuda et al. (2008) Would you say that most people try to be helpful? 0.84 (13.75)

Would you say that most people try to be fair? 0.70 (11.00)

Value-driven attribution Theya feel morally obliged to help 0.79 (12.59) 0.64 (10.16)

Their owners or employees believe in this cause 0.82 (13.39) 0.85 (15.03)

Ellen et al. (2006) They want to make it easier for consumers who care about

the cause to support it

0.80 (12.82) 0.83 (14.52)

They are trying to give something back to the community 0.77 (12.21) 0.80 (13.69)

Strategic attribution

(Ellen et al. 2006)

They will get more customers by performing this social action

They will keep more of their customers through this social action

0.78 (11.96)

0.91 (14.68)

0.87 (15.78)

0.89 (16.31)

Stakeholder-driven attribution

(Ellen et al. 2006)

They feel their customers expect itb

They feel society in general (i.e., consumers) expects it

They feel their stockholders expect it

0.92 (15.46)

0.78 (12.38)

0.78 (12.41)

0.97 (16.51)

0.70 (10.79)

0.64 (9.95)

Egoistic attribution (Ellen et al.

2006)

They are taking advantage of the nonprofit organization to help their own

business

They are taking advantage of the cause to help their own business

They want to use it as a tax write-off

0.77 (11.86)

0.51 (6.48)

0.87 (13.88)

0.75 (12.55)

0.52 (6.72)

0.88 (15.61)

a Regarding ‘‘Your PC Store’’b Regarding the CSR action mentioned

‘‘We are fortunate to be starting in the right place at the right time, because our investors accepted our business concept very favorably. In my

opinion, the most important plus in our company is that we know our customers’ needs, we know them personally, and we know their

preferences, and if there is any problem, we always, always resolve it,’’ said John

The franchise model allows John and Anthony to access a market of millions of people and transmit the know-how of the company to

investors, control the marketing strategy of the franchise, and at the same time transmit the values of the brand and the company. ‘‘The

business model adopted allows us to control the way our partners are working and not be worried about how the store is going; it also allows

us to pass on the values of our company,’’ affirmed Anthony

‘‘Your PC Store’’ shows a higher level of product quality, and people trust the way in which the company commercializes its new products,

which is why it obtains a higher level of satisfaction than its main competitors. In short, it has an excellent price-quality relationship and a

complete service. [High CA Manipulation]

The company is faithful to its main values; one of these is corporate social responsibility. For the last ten years, the company has worked hard

to donate personal computers, after repairing them, to orphanages within the cities in which it is located. When a customer needs to repair a

computer, they bring it to the nearest ‘‘Your PC Store’’, where a staff member assesses the problem; if the repair is not economically

feasible, the computer is recycled. If it can be repaired afterwards, it is donated to an orphanage in the city. ‘‘Your PC Store’’ pays all repair

costs before donating the computer to the orphanage. [High Fit Manipulation]

[Study 2] A recent study published by Corporate Press indicates that consumers believe that people are reliable and will not take advantage of

you. In fact, entrusted people will do well in life because they trust them [high interpersonal trust manipulation]. Furthermore, ‘‘Your PC

Store’’ has recently appeared in a news release in the local press, which reveals that ‘‘Your PC Store’’ wasn’t honestly involved in corporate

social responsibility activities and that the store portrays an unrealistic image. In short, ‘‘Your PC Store’’ does CSR activities to look good

but does not actually do what it says [high corporate hypocrisy manipulation]

Determinants of Consumer Attributions of CSR

123

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and

interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.

Allen, C. T. (1982). Self-perception based strategies for stimulating energy

conservation. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(4), 381–390.

Anderson, N. H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change.

Psychological Review, 78(3), 171–206.

Backhaus, K. B., Stone, B. A., & Heiner, K. (2002). Exploring the

relationship between corporate social performance and employer

attractiveness. Business and Society, 41(3), 292–318.

Barone, M. J., Norman, A. T., & Miyazaki, A. D. (2007). Consumer

response to retailer use of cause-related marketing: is more fit

better? Journal of Retailing, 83(4), 437–445.

Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The

impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer

behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46–53.

Bell, S. J., Menguc, B., & Stefani, S. L. (2004). When customers

disappoint: A model of relational internal marketing and

customer complaints. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 32(2), 112–126.

Berens, G., Van Riel Cees, B., & Van Rekom, J. (2007). The CSR-

Quality Trade-Off: When can corporate social responsibility and

corporate ability compensate each other? Journal of Business

Ethics, 74(3), 233–252.

Berens, G., Van Riel, C. B. M., & Van Bruggen, G. H. (2005).

Corporate associations and consumer product responses: The

moderating role of corporate brand dominance. Journal of

Marketing, 69(3), 35–48.

Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T. M., & Pillutla, M. (1998). A formal

model of trust based on outcomes. Academy of Management

Review, 23(3), 459–472.

Bhattacharya C. B., & Sen S. (2003). Consumer-company identifi-

cation: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships

with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good:

When, why and how consumers respond to corporate social

initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9–24.

Bigne, E., Alcaniz, R., & Curras, P. (2010). Alliances between brands

and social causes: The influence of company credibility on social

responsibility image. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(2),

169–186.

Bilsky, W., & Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Values and personality.

European Journal of Personality, 8(3), 163–181.

Boush, D. M., & Loken, B. (1991). A process-tracing study of brand

extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(1),

16–28.

Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product:

corporate associations and consumer product responses. The

Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.

Table 4 Means, standard deviations, scale reliability and correlations (study 1)

Mean SD AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Values-driven attribution 4.84 1.52 0.63 0.86 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.20 0.28

2. Strategic attribution 7.29 1.87 0.72 0.18** 0.80 0.19 0.05 0.00 0.10

3. Egoist attribution 6.94 1.74 0.54 -0.10n.s. 0.44*** 0.71 0.06 0.04 0.00

4. Stakeholder-driven attribution 4.55 2.04 0.69 0.39*** 0.22*** 0.25*** 0.86 0.09 0.03

5. Company–cause fit 4.65 2.90 n.a. 0.45*** -0.02 n.s. -0.21*** 0.30*** n.a. 0.10

6. Corporate ability 7.03 1.92 0.69 0.53*** 0.32*** -0.04n.s. 0.17** 0.31*** 0.80

Cronbach’s alpha is reported along the diagonal. Correlations are reported in the lower half of the matrix. Share variances are reported in the

upper half of the matrix

AVE average variance extracted, n.a. not available

CFA fit statistics: v2(76) = 158.46, p = 0.00, GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.85, RMSEA = 0.074 SRMR = 0.069

* p \ 0.10; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01; n.s. not significant

Table 5 Means, standard deviations, scale reliability and correlations (study 2)

Mean SD AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Values-driven attribution 4.18 1.35 0.62 0.86 0.19 0.18 0.00 0.14 0.20

2. Strategic attribution 6.10 2.27 0.77 0.44*** 0.86 0.26 0.05 0.00 0.25

3. Egoist attribution 5.43 1.84 0.54 -0.42*** 0.51*** 0.72 0.03 0.00 0.25

4. Stakeholder-driven attribution 4.00 1.80 0.62 0.04n.s. 0.23*** 0.17** 0.78 0.10 0.07

5. Interpersonal trust 2.58 1.17 0.60 0.37*** -0.06n.s. 0.02n.s. 0.31*** 0.79 0.02

6. Corporate hypocrisy 3.53 1.68 0.53 -0.45*** -0.50*** 0.50*** 0.26*** 0.15** 0.72

Cronbach’s alpha is reported along the diagonal. Correlations are reported in the lower half of the matrix. Share variances are reported in the

upper half of the matrix

AVE average variance extracted, n.a. not available

CFA fit statistics: v2(120) = 262.15, p = 0.00, GFI = 0.88, AGFI = 0.83, RMSEA = 0.074 SRMR = .068

* p \ 0.10; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01; n.s. not significant

L. Marın et al.

123

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131.

Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer

do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 18(7), 560–577.

Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as

aspirational talk. Organization, 20(3), 372–393.

Cui, Y., Trent, E. S., Sullivan, P. M., & Matiru, G. N. (2003). Cause-

related marketing: how generation Y responds. International

Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(6), 310–320.

Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445–455.

Drumwright, M. (1996). Company advertising with social dimension:

the role of non-economic criteria. Journal of Marketing, 60(4),

71–87.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business

returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The role of

CSR Communication. International Journal of Management

Reviews, 12(1), 8–20.

Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate

associations: consumer attributions for corporate socially re-

sponsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 34(2), 147–157.

Fein, S. (1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the

correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 70(6), 1164–1184.

Fein, S., Hilton, J. L., & Miller, D. T. (1990). Suspicion of ulterior

motivation and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 58, 753–764.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. New York:

Harper & Row.

Folkes, V. S. (1984). Consumer reactions to product failure: an

attributional approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(4),

398–409.

Forehand, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003). When is honesty the best policy?

The effect of stated company intent on consumer skepticism.

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 349–356.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation

models with unobservable variables and measurement error.

Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

Gao, Y. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’

response: the missing linkage. Baltic Journal of Management,

4(3), 269–287.

Garcia de los Salmones, M. M., Herrero Crespo, A., & Rodriguez del

Bosque, I. (2005). Influence of corporate social responsibility on

loyalty and valuation of services. Journal of Business Ethics,

61(4), 369–385.

Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Batra, R. (2004). When corporate image affects

product evaluations: The moderating role of perceived risks.

Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2), 197–205.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New

York: Wiley.

Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2002). Building brand equity through

corporate societal marketing. Journal of Public Policy and

Marketing, 21(1), 78–89.

Hur, W., Kim, H., & Woo, J. (2014). How CSR leads to corporate

brand equity: Mediating mechanisms of corporate brand

credibility and reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1),

75–86.

Jahdi, K. S., & Acikdilli, G. (2009). Marketing communications and

corporate social responsibility (CSR): Marriage of convenience

or shotgun wedding? Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 103–113.

Jia, M., & Zhang, Z. (2014). How does the stock market value

corporate social performance? When behavioral theories interact

with stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(3),

433–465.

Johansen, S. T., Selart, M., & Grønhaug, K. (2013). The effects of risk

on initial trust formation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

43, 1185–1199.

Kelly, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American

Psychologist, 28, 107–128.

Lafferty, B. A., Goldsmith, R. E., & Hult, G. T. M. (2004). The

impact of the alliance on the partners: A look at cause-brand

alliances. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 509–531.

Lai, C., Chiu, C., Yang, C., & Pai, D. (2010). The effects of corporate

social responsibility on brand performance: the mediating effect

of industrial brand equity and corporate reputation. Journal of

Business Ethics, 95(3), 457–469.

Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining

trust in work relationships. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust

in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp.

114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The

effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to

corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68(4),

16–32.

Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility

in Europe and the U.S.: insights from businesses’ self-presen-

tation. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3),

497–514.

Marin, L., & Ruiz, S. (2007). ‘‘I need you too!’’ Corporate identity

attractiveness for consumers and the role of social responsibility.

Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3), 245–260.

Marin, L., Ruiz, S., & Rubio, A. (2009). The role of identity salience

in the effects of corporate social responsibility on consumer

behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 65–78.

Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. (2003). Corporate sponsorships of

philanthropic activities: when do they impact perception of

sponsor brand? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3),

316–327.

Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2005). The effects of corporate social

responsibility and price on consumer responses. Journal of

Consumer Affairs, 39(1), 121–147.

Munshi, D., & Kurian, P. (2005). Imperializing spin cycles: A

postcolonial look at public relations, greenwashing, and the

separation of publics. Public Relations Review, 31(4), 513–520.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H., & Paladino, A. (2014). Perceived

greenwashing: The interactive effects of green advertising and

corporate environmental performance on consumer reactions.

Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 693–707.

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social

and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Stud-

ies, 24(3), 403–441.

Pracejus, J. W., & Olsen, G. D. (2004). The role of brand/cause fit in

the effectiveness of cause-related marketing campaigns. Journal

of Business Research, 57(6), 635–640.

Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. J., Carrie, S. T., & Li, H. (2004). Congruence

effects in sponsorship: the mediating role of sponsor credibility

and consumer attributions of sponsor motive. Journal of

Advertising, 33(1), 29–42.

Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88–106.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not

so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of

Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.

Saeidi, S. P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S. P., & Saeaeidi, S. A.

(2015). How does corporate social responsibility contribute to

firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive

advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction. Journal of

Business Research, 68(2), 341–350.

Determinants of Consumer Attributions of CSR

123

Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead

to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social respon-

sibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 43–62.

Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of

corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stake-

holder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy

of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166.

Sengupta, J., Goodstein, R. C., & Boninger, D. S. (1997). All cues are

not created equal: obtaining attitude persistence under low-

involvement conditions. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4),

351–361.

Sheth, J. N., & Parvatiyar, A. (1995). Relationship marketing in

consumer markets: antecedents and consequences. Journal of

Marketing Science, 23(4), 255–271.

Simmons, C., & Becker-Olsen, K. (2004). When do social sponsorship

enhance or dilute equity: Fit, message source and the persistence of

effect. Advances in Consumer Research, 29(1), 287–289.

Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1979). The role of category accessibility

in the interpretation of information about persons. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 841–856.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional

approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

Swanson, D. L. (1995). Addressing a theoretical problem by

reorienting the Corporate Social Performance model. Academy

of Management Review, 20(1), 43–64.

Tokuda, Y., Jimba, M., Yanai, H., & Inoguchi, T. (2008). Interper-

sonal trust and quality of life: a cross-sectional study in Japan.

www.plosone.org.

Trimble, C. S., & Rifon, N. J. (2006). Consumer perceptions of

compatibility in cause-related marketing messages. International

Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11, 29–47.

Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social

performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective

employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.

Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vreschopoulos, A. P., & Avramidis, P.

K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: attributions, loyalty,

and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy

Marketing Science, 37(2), 170–180.

Wagner, T., Lutz, Richard J., & Barton, A. W. (2009). Corporate

hypocrisy: overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social

responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 71–79.

Walker, M., Here, B., Parent, M. M., & Drane, D. (2010). Social

responsibility and the Olympic Games: the mediating role of

consumer attributions. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4),

659–680.

Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer

responses to cause-related marketing: From skeptics to socially

concerned. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17(2),

226–238.

Williams, P., & Aaker, J. L. (2002). Can mixed emotions peacefully

coexist? Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 636–649.

Winters, L. C. (1988). Does it pay to advertise to hostile audiences

with corporate advertising? Journal of Advertising Research,

28(3), 11–18.

Yoon, Y., Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of

corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies

with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4),

377–390.

Zaheer, A., Mcevily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter?

Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal

trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141–159.

Zdravkovic, S., Magnusson, P., & Stanley, S. M. (2010). Dimensions

of fit between a brand and a social cause and their influence on

attitudes. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(2),

151–160.

L. Marın et al.

123

View publication statsView publication stats