PREDICTING CONSUMERS? CAUSE-BRAND ALLIANCE ATTITUDE AND PURCHASE INTENTION: THE INFLUENCE OF CAUSE INVOLVEMENT, MESSAGE SOURCE, PERCEIVED MOTIVATIONS, AND CAUSE-BRAND FIT Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this dissertation is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. The dissertation does not include proprietary or classified information. ____________________________ Beth Harben Certificate of Approval: ____________________________ ____________________________ Sandra Forsythe, Co-Chair Wi-Suk Kwon, Co-Chair Wrangler Professor Assistant Professor Consumer Affairs Consumer Affairs ____________________________ ____________________________ Sang-Eun Byun Gisela Buschle-Diller Assistant Professor Professor Consumer Affairs Polymer and Fiber Engineering ____________________________ George T. Flowers Dean Graduate School PREDICTING CONSUMERS? CAUSE-BRAND ALLIANCE ATTITUDE AND PURCHASE INTENTION: THE INFLUENCE OF CAUSE INVOLVEMENT, MESSAGE SOURCE, PERCEIVED MOTIVATIONS, AND CAUSE-BRAND FIT Beth Harben A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama December 18, 2009 iii PREDICTING CONSUMERS? CAUSE-BRAND ALLIANCE ATTITUDE AND PURCHASE INTENTION: THE INFLUENCE OF CAUSE INVOLVEMENT, MESSAGE SOURCE, PERCEIVED MOTIVATIONS, AND CAUSE-BRAND FIT Beth Harben Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this dissertation at its discretion, upon request of individual or institutions at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights. ________________________ Signature of Author ________________________ Date of Graduation iv DISSERTATION ABSTRACT PREDICTING CONSUMERS? CAUSE-BRAND ALLIANCE ATTITUDE AND PURCHASE INTENTION: THE INFLUENCE OF CAUSE INVOLVEMENT, MESSAGE SOURCE, PERCEIVED MOTIVATIONS, AND CAUSE-BRAND FIT Beth Harben Doctor of Philosophy, December 18, 2009 (M.S., University of Georgia, 2004) (B.S., University of Georgia, 2001) 222 Typed Pages Directed by Sandra Forsythe and Wi-Suk Kwon Companies have increasingly been engaging in cause-brand alliances to enhance brand image and increase sales. But, consumers? reactions to such campaigns can be difficult to predict. The purpose of this study was to create a model that explains the relationships between factors that have been shown to influence consumers? reactions to cause-brand alliances, including cause involvement, message source, cause-brand fit, and v perceived brand motivations, and the impact that these factors have on cause-brand alliance attitude and purchase intention together in a conceptual model. The fit of the model and the strength and direction of the 11 hypothesized relationships were tested in an experimental approach using a series of mock press releases as stimuli and a national sampling of 742 college students. Hypothesis testing results indicated that cause-band alliance attitude was more favorable when perceived brand motivations were more altruistic and more profit-based, and that cause-brand fit influenced consumers? perceptions of altruistic brand motivations but not profit-based motivations, suggesting that consumers understand that brands may have both kinds of motivations for engaging in cause-brand alliances. The influence of cause-brand fit on cause-brand alliance attitude was mediated by perceived altruistic brand motivations, indicating that if a brand partners with a low-fitting cause, cause- brand alliance attitude is not directly harmed but consumers may perceive less altruistic brand motivations, which could lead to less favorable cause-brand alliance attitude. Marketers do not need to focus on the source of the cause-brand alliance message, as consumers are not influenced by message source when forming attitudes toward the alliance. A more favorable cause-brand alliance attitude resulted in a greater intention to purchase the product associated with the alliance, emphasizing the importance for marketers to create cause-brand alliances that are favorably viewed by consumers. During further analysis, subjective perceptions of cause involvement exerted a positive effect on cause-brand alliance attitude, indicating that brands will want to partner with causes that their target consumers feel is relevant to their lives. Implications for these findings and suggestions for further research are introduced. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my co-advisors, Dr. Wi-Suk Kwon and Dr. Sandra Forsythe for directing me in writing this dissertation and for their support and guidance throughout my graduate career at Auburn University. Thank you for sharing your exceptional research talents with me and thank you for your patience during this process. I have learned so much from you and I look forward to continuing to work with you as I begin a new chapter in my life. I would like to thank my committee for their support and encouragement throughout the entire process of creating this dissertation. Thank you to Dr. Sang-Eun Byun, for your endless encouragement during my studies at Auburn and for guiding me by example as I strive to be both a good researcher and an excellent instructor. Thank you to Dr. Gisela Buschle-Diller for your excitement about my research topic for your advice and ideas for future studies. Thank you to Dr. Brain Bourdeau for providing your perspective from a marketing point of view. Thank you to Dr. Carol Warfield for sharing your wisdom with me, not only about research, but also about life, and for providing much needed hugs during my time at Auburn. I would also like to thank my family and friends for their support throughout my graduate school career. I could not have done this without you. vii Style manual or journal used: Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.) Computer software used: Microsoft Word 2007, Microsoft Excel 2007, SPSS Statistical Software 17.0, Amos 17.0, SurveyMonkey Survey Software, QuestionPro Survey Software viii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... xiii LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1 Objectives............................................................................................................6 Definition of Terms.............................................................................................7 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE......................................................................10 Perceived Motivations and Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude..............................10 Cause-Brand Fit.................................................................................................14 Message Source.................................................................................................22 Cause Involvement ............................................................................................26 Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude and Purchase Intentions for Cause-Brand Alliance Products.......................................................................................31 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................35 Research Design ................................................................................................35 Stimulus Development ......................................................................................35 Pretest 1......................................................................................................35 Instrument..............................................................................................36 Sampling and Data Collection Procedure .............................................38 ix Data Analysis and Results.....................................................................40 Brand Selection ............................................................................40 Cause Involvement .......................................................................43 Pretest 2......................................................................................................44 Instrument..............................................................................................44 Sampling and Data Collection Procedure .............................................46 Data Analysis and Results.....................................................................47 Cause-Brand Fit............................................................................47 Cause Involvement .......................................................................47 Main Experiment .......................................................................................48 Instrument..............................................................................................48 Experimental Stimuli....................................................................48 Dependent Measures ....................................................................49 Manipulation Check Measures.....................................................50 Demographic Items ......................................................................50 Sampling and Data Collection Procedure .............................................51 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS....................................................................................................55 Sample Description ...........................................................................................55 Manipulation Checks.........................................................................................59 Measurement Validity and Reliability ..............................................................61 Hypothesis Testing Results ...............................................................................71 Single-Group SEM.....................................................................................71 x Multiple-Group SEM.................................................................................75 Further Analyses................................................................................................79 Analyses Using the Median-Split Cause Involvement Variable................79 Single-Group SEM.....................................................................................79 Multiple-Group SEM.................................................................................80 Cause-Brand Fit as a Latent Variable with Perceived Fit Indicators.........83 Cause Involvement as a Latent Variable ...................................................87 Cause Involvement and Perceived Brand Motivations..............................87 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................93 Discussion .........................................................................................................93 Perceived Brand Motivations and Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude ...........93 Cause-Brand Fit .........................................................................................95 Message Source .........................................................................................96 Cause Involvement.....................................................................................97 Cause Involvement and Perceived Brand Motivations..............................98 Moderating effects of Cause Involvement.................................................99 Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude and Purchase Intentions for Cause-Brand Alliance Products ..........................................................................100 Implications.....................................................................................................101 Theoretical Implications ..........................................................................101 Managerial Implications ..........................................................................103 Limitations.......................................................................................................105 Sampling Method.....................................................................................105 xi Experimental Design................................................................................107 Recommendations for Future Research ..........................................................110 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................114 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................126 A. Questionnaire (Pretest 1) ............................................................................126 B. Mock Press Releases (Pretest 1) .................................................................138 C. Email Script (Pretest 1)...............................................................................142 D. Information Page (Pretest 1).......................................................................144 E. Cause Donation Question (Pretest 1)..........................................................147 F. Debriefing Page (Pretest 1) .........................................................................149 G. Revised Debriefing Page (Pretest 1)...........................................................151 H. Email Collection Webpage (Pretest 1) .......................................................154 I. Revised Information Page (Pretest 1) ..........................................................155 J. Revised Email Script (Pretest 1)..................................................................158 K. Reminder Email Script (Pretest 1)..............................................................160 L. Questionnaire (Pretest 2).............................................................................162 M. Mock Press Releases (Pretest 2) ................................................................166 N. Email Script (Pretest 2) ..............................................................................170 O. Information Page (Pretest 2).......................................................................172 P. Reminder Email Script (Pretest 2) ..............................................................175 Q. Questionnaire (Main Experiment)..............................................................178 R. Mock Press Releases (Main Experiment)...................................................190 xii S. Information Page (Main Experiment) .........................................................198 T. Debriefing Page (Main Experiment)...........................................................201 U. Sample Distribution by State (Main Experiment)......................................203 xiii LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Press Release Cause Involvement, Brand Attitude Version, and Number of Respondents per Questionnaire Version of Pretest 1 .......................................41 Table 3.2 Pretest 1 Brand Familiarity and Brand Attitude Statistics for each Stimulus Brand ................................................................................................................42 Table 3.3 Cause Involvement, Cause-Brand Fit, and Number of Respondents per Questionnaire Version of Pretest 2....................................................................47 Table 4.1 Demographic Characteristics of each Stimulus Group of the Main Experiment Sample ...............................................................................................................56 Table 4.2 Factor Loadings Confirming Unidimensionality of the Cause-Brand Fit Construct ...........................................................................................................60 Table 4.3 Factor Loadings Confirming Unidimensionality of the Cause Involvement Construct ...........................................................................................................60 Table 4.4 Unstandardized Parameter Estimates for the 8-Indicator CFA Model for Perceived Brand Motivations ............................................................................64 Table 4.5 Unstandardized Parameter Estimates for the 7-Indicator CFA Model for Perceived Brand Motivations ............................................................................66 Table 4.6 Unstandardized Parameter Estimates for the 6-Indicator CFA Model for Perceived Brand Motivations ............................................................................68 xiv Table 4.7 Unstandardized Parameter Estimates for the CFA Model for Purchase Intentions and Cause Brand Alliance Attitude..................................................70 Table 4.8 Unstandardized Parameter Estimates for the Single-Group SEM Model in Figure 4.5...........................................................................................................74 Table 4.9 Unstandardized Parameter Estimates from the Unconstrained Multiple-Group SEM Model in Figure 4.6..................................................................................78 Table 4.10 Unstandardized Parameter Estimates from the Unconstrained Multiple-Group SEM Model in Figure 4.7..................................................................................82 Table 4.11 Unstandardized Parameter Estimates for the SEM using Cause-Brand Fit as a Latent Variable in Figure 4.8 ............................................................................86 Table 4.12 Unstandardized Parameter Estimates for the SEM Model with Cause Involvement as a Latent Variable in Figure 4.9 ................................................89 Table 4.13 Unstandardized Parameter Estimates for the SEM Model Testing the Effect of Cause Involvement on Perceived Brand Motivations in Figure 4.10................92 Table U.1 Sample Distribution by State ..........................................................................204 xv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 The Conceptual Model and Hypotheses...........................................................34 Figure 4.1 The 8-Indicator CFA Model for Perceived Altruistic and Profit-Based Brand Motivations with Standardized Coefficients .....................................................62 Figure 4.2 The 7-Indicator CFA Model for Perceived Altruistic and Profit-Based Brand Motivations with Standardized Coefficients .....................................................65 Figure 4.3 The 6-Indicator CFA Model for Perceived Altruistic and Profit-Based Brand Motivations with Standardized Coefficients .....................................................67 Figure 4.4 The CFA Model for Purchase Intentions and Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude with Standardized Coefficients .........................................................................69 Figure 4.5 Single-Group SEM Model with Standardized Coefficients .............................72 Figure 4.6 Standardized Coefficients from the Multiple-Group SEM Unconstrained Model.................................................................................................................76 Figure 4.7 Multiple-Group SEM Standardized Coefficients Using the Median-Split Cause Involvement Variable .......................................................................................81 Figure 4.8 Standardized Coefficients for the SEM model with Cause-Brand Fit as a Latent Variable..................................................................................................84 Figure 4.9 Standardized Coefficients for the SEM Model with Cause Involvement as a Latent Variable..................................................................................................88 xvi Figure 4.10 Standardized Coefficients for the SEM Model Testing the Effect of Cause Involvement on Perceived Brand Motivations..................................................90 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Cause-related marketing, ?the attempt to influence consumers through associations with social causes and issues? (Trimble & Rifon, 2006, p. 30), has become a popular way for companies to differentiate themselves from competitors and gain favor with consumers. In 1983, American Express created the first cause-related marketing campaign when the company offered to donate one cent for each credit card transaction and one dollar for each new credit card membership to the restoration project for the Statue of Liberty (Josephson, 1984). The campaign was extremely beneficial for the cause and the corporation, raising $1 million for the Statue of Liberty and increasing American Express credit card membership by 28% (Josephson, 1984). Largely due to the success of the American Express campaign, corporations have been engaging in cause- related marketing campaigns since the early 1980s to improve brand image with consumers. Recently specialty retailers such as the Gap, Coldwater Creek, and White House Black Market, designers such as Kenneth Cole, and even department stores such as Nordstrom and Macy?s have engaged in cause-related marketing campaigns by offering to donate money to a cause when the consumer purchases an item from the company. It has been suggested that for a company?s cause-related marketing campaign to be successful over the long term, it must create an emotional bond with consumers by 2 supporting a cause that is important to them (Davidson, 1997; Webb & Mohr, 1998). Such partnerships that link the brand with the cause in the consumer?s mind are referred to as cause-brand alliances (Davidson, 1997; Lafferty, Goldsmith & Hult, 2004). Companies that demonstrate a high level of corporate social responsibility tend to be more favorably viewed by consumers, and consumers tend to show higher intentions to purchase from these companies (Mohr & Webb, 2005). This may be because some consumers view their purchases as a way to reward socially responsible companies (Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001). Participating in a cause-brand alliance potentially benefits a brand by fostering more favorable attitudes toward the brand, thereby increasing purchase intention and brand equity (Gupta & Pirsch, 2006; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006). However, consumers? reactions to marketing campaigns can be difficult to predict, and their responses to cause-brand alliances may not be always positive. Consumers may question the brand?s reason for joining with the cause and wonder how much help the brand will offer to the cause (Webb & Mohr, 1998). In Webb and Mohr?s (1998) exploratory study, 47% of participants responded that the firm?s motive for participating in cause-related marketing is to help itself. Previous studies have identified factors that increase the likelihood of consumers responding favorably to cause-brand alliance campaigns. For example, consumers? involvement with the cause, defined as ?a state of interest, motivation, or arousal? (Rothschild, 1984, p. 216) the consumer experiences when exposed to the cause derived from a perception of importance (Barki & Hartwick, 1989), has been found to positively influence consumers? cause-brand alliance attitude (Hajjat, 2003). Another factor 3 influencing cause-brand alliance attitude is fit between the cause and the brand (referred to hereafter as cause-brand fit), or the congruency between the cause and the brand in terms of mission, attributes, concepts, and any other associations (Simmons & Becker- Olsen, 2006). A high degree of cause-brand fit increases favorability of product evaluations, intentions to purchase the product associated with the alliance, and brand equity (Hamlin & Wilson, 2004; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006). In addition, when the source of the message informing the consumer about the cause-brand alliance is the cause rather than the brand, consumers have a more favorable attitude toward the cause-brand alliance and a more favorable attitude toward the brand (Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006). Furthermore, the consumer?s perceptions of the underlying reasons for the brand?s participation in the cause-brand alliance (perceived brand motivations) influence their intentions to purchase the brand (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006). Extant research examining perceived brand motivations for participating in cause- brand alliances is limited. With the exception of one published study (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006) previous literature on perceived brand motivations consists of qualitative studies using in-depth interviews with participants to understand consumers? perceived brand motivations (Webb & Mohr, 1998) or quantitative studies investigating factors that influence a consumer?s perceived brand motivations, such as cause-brand fit (Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006) or type of donation (Dean, 2003). In the only published study to manipulate perceived motivations, Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, and Hill (2006) found that they did in fact have a positive influence on purchase intentions. The 4 present study, however, proposes that the relationship between perceived motivations and purchase intentions may not be direct, but that perceived brand motivations may influence purchase intention through its effect on cause-brand alliance attitude. The present study builds on previous literature suggesting a positive relationship between cause-brand fit and cause-brand alliance attitude (Lafferty, Goldsmith, & Hult, 2004; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006) by not only examining a direct influence of cause- brand fit on cause-brand alliance attitude but also investigating the indirect influence of cause-brand fit through the effect of cause-brand fit on perceived brand motivations. Furthermore, the effects of message source on consumers? perceived brand motivations and cause-brand alliance attitude have been largely overlooked in the literature. In the only published study to investigate the effects of message source on cause-brand alliance attitude, Simmons and Becker-Olsen (2006) found that consumers had a more favorable attitude toward the alliance when the message source was the cause (as opposed to the brand). The present study tests a direct relationship between message source and cause-brand alliance attitude and investigates an indirect relationship between the variables, mediated by perceived brand motivations. Previous research has examined ways that consumers? involvement with the cause influences their attitude toward the cause-brand alliance, such as through varying the type of cause a brand supports (Ellen, Mohr, & Webb, 2000), yet the effect of cause involvement on consumers? responses to cause brand alliances may not be so straightforward. Guided by the elaboration likelihood model, the present study proposes 5 that cause involvement influences cause-brand alliance attitude as a moderator in the effect of 1) cause-brand fit and 2) message source on perceived brand motivations. There is no published study that simultaneously examines the influence of all of these factors on consumers? intentions to purchase the product associated with the cause- brand alliance. Although pervious literature has found that purchase intentions are influenced by factors such as cause-brand fit and perceived brand motivations (Becker- Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006) and attitude toward the cause (Berger, Cunningham, & Kozinets, 1999), the relationship between cause-brand alliance attitude and purchase intentions has not been studied. Drawing on the theory of reasoned action, the proposed model suggests that cause-brand alliance factors such as cause-brand fit, message source, and perceived motivations may not have a direct relationship with purchase intentions, but may influence consumers? attitude toward the cause-brand alliance, which positively influences their purchase intentions. Although brands participate in marketing campaigns such as cause-brand alliances to achieve a variety of marketing objectives such as enhancing brand image and broadening customer base, the underlying goal is to increase sales (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). Therefore, understanding how these factors influence consumers? intentions to purchase the product associated with the cause-brand alliance will have important implications for marketers who wish to create conditions that increase consumer?s perceived altruistic brand motivations, develop a more favorable cause-brand alliance attitude, and ultimately increase purchase intentions. 6 Although the influence of consumer involvement with the cause, cause-brand fit, message source, and perceived brand motivations on cause-brand alliance attitude and purchase intention have each been examined separately in previous studies, little research has studied all of these factors together at one time. Simultaneously investigating the causal and structural relationships among these factors is necessary to provide a clearer understanding of the process by which they influence consumer responses to a cause- brand alliance. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to build a conceptual model that delineates the relationships between consumer cause involvement, message source, cause-brand fit, and perceived brand motivations and the direct and indirect effects that these factors have on cause-brand alliance attitude and purchase intentions, and test the model using an experimental approach. The present study uses a theoretical framework based on cognitive psychology theories including attribution theory, schema theory, the elaboration likelihood model, and the theory of reasoned action, combined with findings from the previous studies that investigate these factors individually to build the proposed conceptual model. Objectives The specific objectives of this study were: ? To examine the direct effects that cause-brand fit, message source, and cause involvement have on consumers? attitude toward a cause-brand alliance. ? To examine the indirect effects that cause-brand fit and message source have on consumers? attitude toward a cause-brand alliance as mediated by their 7 perceptions of altruistic versus profit-based brand motivations for engaging in the alliance. ? To examine the role that cause involvement plays in moderating the effects of message source and cause-brand fit on perceived brand motivations. ? To investigate the relationship between consumers? cause-brand alliance attitude and their intention of purchasing the product under the cause-brand alliance. Definition of Terms Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude: A consumer?s favorable or unfavorable evaluation of the partnership between a cause and a brand, adapted from the definition of attitude by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). The construct is operationalized in the present study as participants? responses to a brand attitude scale adapted from Spears and Singh (2004). Cause-Brand Fit: The degree of similarity that consumers perceive between a brand and the cause with which it partners (Lafferty, 2007). In this study, cause-brand fit is operationalized as a cause-brand alliance in a mock press release that represents either high-fit, where the cause and the brand are congruent in terms of the associations that consumers hold in their minds about the brand and the cause, or low-fit, where the cause and the brand are not congruent in this way. Cause Involvement: ?A state of interest, motivation, or arousal? (Rothschild, 1984, p. 216) that the consumer experiences when exposed to the cause and is derived from a perception of importance ( Barki & Hartwick, 1989). In this study, cause 8 involvement is manipulated by mock cause-brand alliance news articles portraying a cause which arouses either high or low state of interest. Message Source: The source from which the information about the cause-brand alliance is first obtained. In this study, message source is operationalized as either the cause or the brand announcing the alliance in a mock press release. Perceived Brand Motivations: Consumers? perceptions of the underlying reasons for the brand?s participation in the cause-brand alliance (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006). Perceived Altruistic Brand Motivations: Consumers? perceptions that the underlying reason for the brand participating in the cause-brand alliance is to benefit the public (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006). A scale developed by Rifon, Choi, Trimble, and Li (2004) to measure altruistic and self-serving brand motives has been adapted to measure perceived altruistic brand motivations. Perceived Profit-Based Brand Motivations: Consumers? perceptions that the underlying reason for the brand participating in the cause-brand alliance is to increase their profits (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006; Rifon, Choi, Trimble, & Li, 2004). Perceived profit-based brand motivations is operationalized as participants? response to a scale which was modified to measure altruistic and self-serving brand motives (Rifon, Choi, Trimble, & Li 2004). 9 Cause-Brand Alliance Product Purchase Intention: ?An individual?s conscious plan to make an effort to purchase? the product associated with the cause-brand alliance (Spears & Singh, 2004, p. 56). This construct is operationalized as the participant?s stated intention to purchase a product that is affiliated with the cause- brand alliance described in the news article as measured by a purchase intention scale adapted from Spears and Singh (2004). 10 CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT The present chapter provides a review of literature for the major constructs addressed in the study, describes the theoretical framework supporting the study design, and introduces the proposed model and hypotheses for this study. The constructs in this study include perceived brand motivations, cause-brand alliance attitude, cause-brand fit, message source, cause involvement, and cause-brand alliance attitude product purchase intentions. Within each section, the relevant literature is discussed first, then the theoretical framework for the hypothesis is explained, and finally the hypotheses are stated. Perceived Brand Motivations and Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude Although one may expect that consumers would respond favorably when a brand engages in an alliance to raise money and awareness for a cause, it is often difficult to predict consumers? reactions to such marketing campaigns. Consumers? ideas about a brand?s motives for participating in cause-brand alliances can vary from believing that the brand has altruistic desires to help the cause (altruistic motivations) to perceiving that the brand is joining with the cause simply to appeal to consumers and increase profits (profit-based motivations) (Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001). As early as 1988, when the concept of cause-brand alliances was still new, Varadarajan and Menon (1988) stated, ?Firms walk a fine line between reaping increased sales, goodwill, and positive publicity and incurring negative publicity and charges of exploitation of causes (p. 69).? Studies 11 have indicated that factors such as cause-brand fit (Rifon, Choi, Trimble, & Li, 2001), consumers? gender (Chaney & Dolli, 2001; Ross, Patterson, & Stutts, 1992; Trimble & Rifon, 2006), and type of donation (Dean, 2003) may influence consumers? perceptions of brand motivations. However, findings of previous studies on perceived motivations have varied considerably, warranting further research on the topic. Ellen, Webb, and Mohr (2006) found that one-third of the respondents believed that a brand participates in a cause-brand alliance solely for profit-based motivations. During in-depth interviews with participants, Webb and Mohr (1998) found that half of the participants believed that the brand was only participating in the alliance for reasons such as increasing profits and achieving positive publicity, whereas the other half perceived that the brands had a combination of reasons including both profit-based and altruistic reasons. Attribution theory suggests that a consumer will attribute a reason to explain why the brand partnered with the cause. Attribution theory refers to a series of theories that attempt to explain how people interpret causes for events that they encounter (Kelley & Michela, 1980). Attribution theory began with Heider?s (1941, 1958) early writings on interpersonal relations, which proposed that a person behaved in response to his perceptions of another?s thoughts and feelings. Heider (1958) states that when encountering a behavior an individual perceives that the actor had a purpose in performing the behavior and the individual focuses on the intention of the actor to determine how to respond. Building on Heider?s ideas, Thibaut and Riecken (1955) conducted a study on how an individual attributes reasons for why people help others and found that an 12 individual either attributed internal attitudes, such as wanting to be helpful, or external influences, such as feeling pressure to help another rather than seem unfriendly. When the other person was of lower status than the individual, he or she attributed the helping behavior less to internal attitudes and more to external pressures. In addition, when the individual attributed internal reasons for helping rather than external pressures, he or she perceived that the person had honorable characteristics resulting in a more favorable attitude toward the person. Kelley?s (1973) discounting principle assumes that as the individual witnesses an event, he or she notices possible causes for the event and then considers them as explanations for why the event occurred. A possible cause can be discounted as the reason for an effect if other plausible causes are also present. For example, in Thibaut and Riecken?s (1955) study, internal attitude helpfulness was discounted as the reason for the low status individual?s helping the behavior due to the presence of external pressures. According to Kelley (1971, 1973), when there are constraints, cost, or risks associated with an action, observers attribute the action more to the actor?s internal attitudes than to external pressures on the actor. Kelley?s (1973) discounting principle refers to Thibaut and Riecken?s (1955) internal attitudes and external pressures as intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Intrinsic motivation (e. g., altruistic) is when an actor does a behavior because he is motivated by the inherent satisfaction. External motivation (e.g., profit) is when an actor does a behavior because of the external goals that it will yield. An individual responds more favorably to an internally driven helping action (such as a cause-brand alliance based on 13 altruistic motivations) than to an action done in response to external pressure (such as a cause-brand alliance based on profit-based motivations by shareholders) (Kelley, 1973). Likewise, helpers will be viewed more favorably when their helping behavior is attributed to an internal cause than when it is attributed to an external cause, or when the reason for the helping behavior is not known (Goranson & Berkowitz, 1966; Thibaut & Riecken, 1955). In the present study, a consumer may attribute internal reasons for the brand?s engaging in the alliance (i.e., the brand wanted to help the cause) and/or external reasons (i.e., the brand wanted to increase favor with the consumer and ultimately increase profits). If the perceived brand motivations are altruistic (an internal reason that brand would like to help, rather than profit-based), consumers will have a more favorable attitude toward the cause-brand alliance. Kelley and Michela (1980) also use Thibaut and Riecken?s (1955) findings and Jones and Davis?s (1965) theory of correspondent inference as support for their model of attribution theory, consisting of antecedents (information, beliefs, and motivations), attributions (perceived causes) and consequences (behavior, affect, and expectancy). Kelley and Michela?s attribution theory model suggests that upon observing a behavior, individuals use information that they have about the actor, their beliefs about what other actors would do in the same situation, their beliefs about the conditions under which the behavior occurred, and the desirability of the outcomes to attribute reasons for the actor?s behaviors (Jones & Davis, 1965). In the present study, the consumer may attribute either the brand?s desire to help the cause (altruistic motivations) or to increase their profits (profit-based motivations) as 14 their motivation to join with the cause in a cause-brand alliance. After attributing a cause for the action, the individual consequently responds to the action through a behavior or a feeling, or predicts what will happen next. In the present study, whether individuals attribute the reason for the brand joining with the cause in the cause-brand alliance to altruistic motivations or to profit-based motivations is expected to influence their attitude toward the cause-brand alliance. Therefore, attribution theory provided support for the following hypothesis: H1: Cause-brand alliance attitude will be more favorable when the perceived brand motivations are a) more altruistic and b) less profit-based. Cause-Brand Fit The literature concerning fit between a cause and a brand is derived largely from studies on brand extensions (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Bridges, Keller, & Sood, 2000; Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994), brand alliances (James, 2006; Simonin & Ruth, 1998), brand sponsorships (Becker-Olsen & Hill, 2006; Cornwell & Maignan, 1998; Jagre, Watson & Watson, 2001), and even celebrity endorsements (Kamins & Gupta, 1994). A review of the relevant literature shows that the definition of cause-brand fit varies throughout the literature, and research is inconsistent regarding the type of fit and the degree of fit that should occur between the brand and its partner for a cause-brand alliance to be effective. Although the concept of fit has been studied across a variety of areas in the brand literature, a consistent, universal definition for the term cannot be found. For example, 15 Simmons and Becker-Olsen (2006) define fit as encompassing a similarity of ?mission, products, markets, technologies, attributes, concepts, and any other associations? (p. 155), while Gupta and Pirsch (2006) define fit as ?the perceived link between the company?s image, positioning, and target market and the cause?s image and constituency? (p. 315). The present study defines cause-brand fit as the degree of similarity that consumers perceive between a brand and the cause with which it partners (Lafferty, 2007). Cause- brand fit is operationalized here as a cause-brand alliance in a mock press release that represents either high-fit, where the cause and the brand are congruent in terms of the associations that consumers hold in their minds about the brand and the cause, or low-fit, where the cause and the brand are not congruent in this way. Furthermore, research findings regarding the most effective way to provide a basis for fit varies considerably. Varadarajan and Menon (1988) suggest that a brand may join with a cause based on the brand?s product offerings, market positioning, image, and target market. Menon and Kahn (2003) describe fit more narrowly as congruence between the brand and the cause that may result from four shared associations: 1) similar attributions between the brand?s product and the issue that the cause supports, such as a plant-based shampoo supporting the protection of rainforests, 2) the brand and the cause reaching similar target markets, such as a women?s apparel brand aligning with prevention of breast cancer, 3) brand image associations that the brand has created through past philanthropic activities in a specific domain such as the Body Shop supporting the environment, or 4) involvement of the brand with a cause through an executive?s personal commitment to the cause such as an apparel brand supporting cancer 16 prevention because the CEO is a cancer survivor. Nan and Heo (2007) suggest that consumers can perceive fit between the cause and the brand in two ways, such as having similar target markets (Avon and Susan G. Komen for the Cure) or sharing a similar value (e.g., Patagonia and the Arctic National Refuge). In the brand extension literature, fit between the parent brand and the extension was originally based on similarity in attributes or functions of the products, but later studies found that intangible brand image associations were in fact transferred from the parent to the extension. Park, Milberg, and Lawson (1991) conducted one of the first studies showing that brand extensions were viewed more favorably when the concept of the extension product matched the brand concept of the parent brand. For example, consumers more favorably viewed an extension of a prestigious brand when the extension product was also prestigious. When the brand was known for functionality, the extension was more favorably viewed when its concept was also functional. A number of other studies since Park, Milberg and Lawson?s (1991) investigation have found that when consumers are evaluating brand extensions, associations that they hold about the brand influence their evaluations of the fit between the extension and the original brand (Bridges, Keller, & Sood, 2000; Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994). With respect to event sponsorship, Gwinner (1997) suggests that a brand and the event that it sponsors can be similar in terms of intangible brand image or on a functional level. Image-based similarity results when the brand and the event have similar meanings or associations with consumers. For example, Pepsi sponsored Michael Jackson?s 1993 World Tour based on the product and the event sharing an image of youth and excitement 17 (Gwinner, 1997). Functional similarity occurs when the brand?s product is used during the event, such as Valvoline Motor Oil sponsoring racing events (Gwinner, 1997). Both functional and image-based similarity enable the consumer to perceive a fit between the brand and the cause. Trimble and Rifon (2006) also suggest that consumers perceive the congruity between brands and causes as image-based or function-based, noting that functional fit occurs when there are similarities ?between the day-to-day business of an organization and the cause? (Trimble & Rifon, 2006, p. 34). To determine an image- based fit between the cause and the brand, consumers must have at least a small amount of familiarity with the cause (Trimble & Rifon, 2006). The literature is inconsistent regarding the optimal level of fit that a brand should have with its partner organization. Some researchers suggest that a cause-brand alliance should have a high degree of fit, while others believe that there are greater benefits for a moderate or even low fit, and still others cannot demonstrate that fit affects cause-brand alliance success at all. During structured interviews, company managers and marketers indicated that they receive the most favorable responses from consumers when a cause- brand alliance has a moderate fit (Drumwright, 1996). When the cause and the brand have a high fit, consumers perceive more opportunistic and exploitive brand motivations, and when the cause and brand have a low fit, the consumers do not feel that the company was invested in the cause. Hoeffler and Keller (2003) suggest that a brand could enhance the associations currently held by consumers by partnering with a cause that has similar associations, but new associations about the brand could be created when the brand partners with a cause that consumers view in a different light, such as alcohol companies 18 creating a reputation for being socially responsible by sponsoring alcohol education and awareness campaigns (Hoeffler & Keller, 2002). Nan and Heo (2007) reported that high cause-brand fit was related to a more favorable attitude toward the brand only for participants who exhibited high brand consciousness. Lafferty (2007) failed to find a significant relationship between cause-brand fit and purchase intentions. The results of Nan and Heo?s (2007) and Lafferty?s (2007) investigations may have been influenced by the fact that both studies partnered a fictitious brand with a fictitious cause. The use of fictitious brands and causes do not allow participants to have enough information about the brand and the cause to determine if they fit together. Furthermore, in reality, consumers are unlikely to experience an alliance between an unfamiliar cause and an unfamiliar brand. In a qualitative study of cause-brand alliances, consumers stated that brands should engage in an alliance with a cause in which they have similar target markets and a logical association (Haley, 1996). For example, one participant stated that department stores would not want to sponsor responsible drinking because there is not a logical connection. Several empirical studies have provided evidence that higher fit between the brand and its partner results in a more favorable response from consumers, including increased purchase intention (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006; Gupta & Pirsch, 2006), consumer choice, and a greater market share (Pracejus & Olsen, 2004). The present study builds on findings of previous empirical studies that consumers had more favorable attitudes toward the cause-brand alliance when the cause and the brand had a high fit (Lafferty, Goldsmith, & Hult, 2004; Simmons & Becker Olsen, 19 2006). Lafferty, Goldsmith and Hult (2004) divided fit into product fit, where the product category of the brand and the type of cause are congruent (e.g. cancer research and fiber cereal) and brand fit, where the images of the cause and the brand are congruent (wildlife preservation and an outdoor apparel brand). Brand fit, which is similar to the definition of fit in the present study, was the only significant predictor of cause-brand alliance attitude. Simmons and Becker-Olsen (2006) examined the effects of fit on attitude toward the cause-brand alliance. The current study expands on their findings by not only investigating the effect of fit on cause-brand alliance attitude but also the effect on perceived motivations. The potential influence of cause-brand fit on consumer response to cause-brand alliances can be explained through the concept of schemas. While explaining how the memory functions, Bartlett (1932) first used the term schema to describe the organization of past experiences in the mind. A schema is a cognitive structure that represents an experience with some kind of stimulus, (i.e. an event, an object, or a person), including both general knowledge of the experience as well as specific examples and instances (Mandler, 1982; Taylor & Crocker, 1978). Schemas have been discussed widely throughout the social psychology literature, and the literature is full of inter-related hypotheses concerning schemas (Deutsch & Krauss, 1965; Shaw & Costanzo, 1970). When individuals encounter a new event or object, they compare it to existing schemas to determine how to perceive the environment and to guide behavioral responses (Bartlett, 1932; Mandler, 1982; Taylor & Crocker, 1978). Moreover, individuals form an attitude toward the new object or event based on their attitudes towards past experiences that 20 comprise its schema (Bartlett, 1932). While Bartlett was primarily concerned about the role of schemas in memory activation, Mandler (1982) realized the role that schemas play in evaluating stimuli. Upon encountering a new object or event, an individual evaluates the stimulus by comparing it to its relevant schema. Congruity between the new experience and the existing schema results in ?valuations of familiarity, acceptability, and a basic sense of liking? (Mandler, 1982, p. 3). Based on schema theory, a consumer?s schemas of the cause and the brand will be activated when encountering a cause-brand alliance. If the schemas are congruent, then the consumer will perceive that the cause and the brand fit together. Because consumers need a sense of congruity, they will more highly evaluate a cause-brand alliance when the schemas of the brand and the cause are congruent. If the schemas of the cause and the brand are not congruent, the expected outcome is not achieved, and as a result, the individual?s automatic nervous system becomes aroused (Mandler, 1982). A lack of congruity leads to not knowing how to perceive the new environment, which causes a feeling of anxiety. Based on the schema theory and the extensive literature supporting influence of cause-brand fit on cause-brand alliance attitude, the following hypothesis is proposed: H2: When there is a high cause-brand fit, cause-brand alliance attitude will be more positive than when cause-brand fit is low. 21 When the cause-brand fit is low, it is expected that individuals will look for a way to find congruity between the cause and the brand (Mandler, 1982). For example, an individual may try to assimilate the new information by slightly changing the existing schema or by making a connection through a broader concept (Mandler, 1982). In trying to fit the schema together, consumers may consider the perceived motivations of the brand. Heider?s (1958) attribution theory proposes that consumers look for reasons for the events that they encounter, and when the results of event or the characteristics of an object or person differ from what an individual was expecting, attributional processing is even more likely to occur (Cacioppo & Petty, 1979; Hastie, 1984; Lau & Russell, 1980; Pyszcznski & Greenberg, 1981; Wong & Weiner, 1981; Weiner, 2000). Furthermore, according to attribution theory, when people are trying to attribute a cause for an action, they tend to place importance on the perceptions of the motivations of the actor (Jones & Davis, 1965). Previous studies on cause-brand alliances support these findings. If consumers? minds quickly find a fit between the cause and the brand when processing the cause-brand alliance, they are more likely to attribute altruistic motivations to the brand (Rifon, Choi, Trimble, & Li, 2004). Thus, high cause-brand fit was positively related to altruistic motives rather than motives of helping the firm (Ellen, Webb, & Mohr, 2006). Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed: H3: Brand motivations are perceived as a) more altruistic and b) less profit based when the cause-brand fit is high (versus low). 22 The principles of schema and attribution theory suggest that cause-brand alliance attitude is influenced by cause-brand fit through consumers? perceptions of the brand?s motivations. According to schema theory, when individuals encounter a new experience, they try to fit their exiting schema with the new information (Bartlett, 1932; Mandler, 1982; Taylor & Crocker, 1978). When trying to fit the cause and the brand together, individuals are more likely to attribute reasons for the event, such as the motivations of the brand (Cacioppo & Petty, 1979; Hastie, 1984). If the individual perceives that the brand had profit-based motivations, they may be less likely to favorably view the cause- brand alliance. Therefore, based on schema and attribution theory, the following hypothesis is offered: H4: Perceived a) altruistic and b) profit-based brand motivations mediate the effect of cause-brand fit on cause-brand alliance attitude. Message Source Early studies on communication show that individuals? reactions to messages vary according to the source of the information (c.f. Hovland & Weiss, 1951). Characteristics of message source that have been shown to influence consumers? attitude toward a topic include the source?s expertise on the message topic (Yalch & Elmore-Yalch, 1984), the attractiveness of the source (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983), and the perceived self-interest that the source has in the message being communicated (Weiner, Laforge, & Goolsby, 1990). Consumers form expectations about a communicator?s message based on their pre- 23 existing information about the communicator (Weiner, Laforge, & Goolsby, 1990). When the source of a message is perceived as being less self-interested, consumers view the source as more sincere (Eagley, Wood, & Chaiken, 1978). Simmons and Becker- Olsen (2006) found that participants view a cause as having less self-interested motivations than a brand when participating in a cause-brand alliance. These findings support the results of Weiner, Laforge, and Goolsby (1990) that when the message source is the brand, consumers believe that there must be a high level of self-interest because the purpose of the brand communicating with the consumer is to persuade him or her to buy the brand?s products. By contrast, consumers view causes as altruistic because they provide aid to people in need and they are typically non-profit agencies (Webb & Mohr, 1998). Therefore, when the message source about a cause-brand alliance is the cause, (perceived as less-self interested and more sincere than the brand), participants had a more favorable attitude toward the alliance (Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006). Consistent with these findings, the following hypothesis is proposed: H5: When the message source is the cause, cause-brand alliance attitude will be more positive than when the message source is the brand. Moreover, the message source of a cause-brand alliance campaign influences consumers? perceptions of brand motivations for the alliance. Attribution theory forms the conceptual framework for the relationship between message source and perceived brand motivations. Attribution theory proposes that people look to attribute causes for an 24 actor?s behavior in a given situation so that they can respond appropriately to the behavior (Heider, 1958; Jones & Davis, 1965). As individuals encounter a behavior, they use both information and previously held beliefs about the actor and about the outcomes of the behavior as well as specific motivations that the actor may have for a desired outcome to help them attribute the causes for the actor?s behavior (Kelley & Michela, 1980). Jones and Davis?s (1965) theory of correspondent inference also supports the idea that attributions are influenced by information, beliefs, and motivations. For example, when encountering a behavior, individuals will attribute the cause to an action that is ?most salient in the perceptual field? at that time (Kelley & Michela, 1980, p. 466). When an individual reads a message about a cause-brand alliance with the cause as the source, the needs of the cause would likely be most salient and the individual would be more likely to attribute the reason for the alliance to the perceived altruistic motivations of the brand. When the brand is the message source, the brand?s needs would likely be more salient and the attributed cause for the alliance would more likely be the perceived profit-based motivations of the brand. On the other hand, it has been suggested that the salience of the information in making attributions refers to the fact that individuals are simply looking for a sufficient explanation for the behaviors that they encounter (Kelley & Michela, 1980). Rather than contemplating a number of causes, individuals may attribute the first cause that comes into their minds as the explanation for an action. When encountering a message from a cause, it is more likely that perceived altruistic brand motivations will come to the 25 consumer?s mind first. When encountering a message from a brand, it is likely that perceived profit-based brand motivations will be the first thought on consumers? minds. Furthermore, when attributing a cause for a behavior, the observer has expectations about the actor based on past experiences with the actor or what other actors would do in similar situations and beliefs about what outcomes are desired by the actor (Kelley & Michela, 1980). As consumers encounter a message with the brand as the source, they are likely to attribute the brand?s profit-based motivations as the reason for the alliance because they are aware that companies must sell their products. Additionally, a consumer is likely to compare a cause-brand alliance to the brand?s previous marketing activities, and thus is more likely to attribute profit-based motivations when a cause-brand alliance message is communicated by a brand. Based on attribution theory, when individuals are attributing a reason to an observed behavior, they may assume that the actor had specific motivations for the behavior (Jones & Davis, 1965). When inferring a cause, the observer assumes that the actor?s motivations in performing the behavior are to achieve a desirable outcome (Jones & Davis, 1965). Thus, the observer weighs the probability of possible outcomes to determine the actor?s motivation (Jones & Davis, 1965). If an individual receives information about a cause brand alliance with the brand as the message source, he or she will be more likely to attribute the brand?s profit-based motivations as the most probable reason for the alliance because increasing profits is the most desirable outcome for companies. However, if an individual encounters the cause as the message source, he or she may attribute the brand?s altruistic motivations as the most likely reason for joining in 26 the alliance because helping the cause was the most desirable outcome of the alliance for the cause, providing support for the following hypothesis: H6: Brand motivations are perceived to be a) more altruistic and b) less profit- based when the message source is the cause than when the message source is the brand. Moreover, attribution theory suggests that consumers? perceptions of brand motivations influence their cause-brand alliance attitude. According to Kelley?s discounting principle, individuals have more favorable views of actions that are intended to help others (altruistic motivations) than actions that are meant to appease external pressures (e.g. profit-based motivations). When consumers experience a cause-brand alliance, they are likely to more favorably view the alliance when they perceive that the brand?s motivations were altruistic rather than profit-based. Therefore, based on attribution theory, the following hypothesis was developed: H7: Perceived a) altruistic and b) profit-based brand motivations mediate the effect of message source on cause-brand alliance attitude. Cause Involvement The concept of involvement dates back to Sherif and Cantril?s (1947) writings on the role of ego involvement in the learning process and in attitude change. Throughout 27 the literature, researchers have defined involvement in ways that apply specifically to their study, such as felt involvement (Celsi & Olsen, 1988), emotional involvement (Vaughn, 1980), response involvement (Zimbardo, 1960), and personal involvement (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979). The present study defines cause involvement as ?a state of interest, motivation, or arousal? (Rothschild, 1984, p. 216) that the consumer experiences when exposed to the cause (Barki & Hartwick, 1989). Sherif and Hovland (1961) suggest that an individual?s involvement with an issue when exposed to a stimulus related to the issue can affect whether attitude change will occur. Research on cause involvement has investigated whether a consumer?s level of involvement with an issue affects how he or she will respond to a cause-brand alliance. Cause-brand alliance campaigns are perceived more favorably when participants believe that the cause is relevant to their lives (Gupta & Pirsch, 2006). Involvement with the cause is positively related to attitude toward the cause and attitude toward the cause- brand alliance (Trimble & Rifon, 2006). Consumers were found to respond more favorably to a cause-brand alliance that supports disaster-relief, a situation that prompts a greater, more immediate feeling of involvement, than to a cause-brand alliance that supports an ongoing cause (Ellen, Mohr, & Webb, 2000). In addition, consumers have been shown to feel more highly involved with local or regional causes, and therefore are more likely to support these causes than national or international causes (Grau & Folse, 2007; Ross, Stutts, & Patterson, 1991). Smith and Alcorn (1991) found that 71% of the participants in their study believed that it was very or somewhat important to support a 28 charitable cause in their local area. Based on the previous literature, the following hypothesis was developed: H8: When cause involvement is high, cause-brand alliance attitude will be more favorable than when cause involvement is low. Research suggests that a consumer?s level of involvement with an issue may moderate the effect of the message content and other factors such as the message source or message length in producing persuasion. Petty and Cacioppo (1996) introduced the elaboration likelihood model, suggesting two routes to persuasion: the central and peripheral routes. Under the central route, change in attitude occurs due to careful consideration of the issue-relevant arguments in the message. Attitude change occurs through the peripheral route when an individual is persuaded by non-issue cues such as the attractiveness of the message source or the length of the persuasive message. Petty and Cacioppo (1979) found that conditions where individuals were more highly involved with an issue resulted in an increased importance of message-based cognitions in producing persuasion (i.e., central-route attitude change). However, non-message cues had the greatest impact in producing persuasion under low involvement conditions where message content was not being extensively processed (i.e., peripheral-route attitude change). Additional research supports these findings showing that under high-involvement conditions, argument manipulations have a greater impact on attitude change than do 29 non-message cues (Chaiken, 1980; Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman 1980; Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann 1983). However, under low involvement conditions, aspects of the message that are not related to its content, such as the type of appeal used in the message (Schuhwerk & Lefkoff-Hagius, 1995), likeability of the source (Chaiken, 1980), the source?s celebrity status (Kang & Herr, 2006; Petty & Cacioppo, 1983; Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983), and the source?s expertise (Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman 1981) had a greater influence in producing attitude change. The researchers concluded that the degree to which a person is involved with an issue influences the type of persuasion that is most effective in causing attitudinal change. Petty, Cacioppo, and Goldman (1981) provide two reasons for why issue-relevant arguments are more important in persuading an individual under high-involvement conditions. First, a person is more motivated and has a greater need to create an informed, genuine opinion about an issue that he or she is highly involved in. If an issue is personally relevant to people, they are motivated to hold ?correct? opinions on it. However, if a person is not highly involved with an issue and the issue does not have personal consequences, then he or she is not as motivated to cognitively process issue- relevant arguments in a message. Moreover, people have a greater ability to process personally relevant issue arguments because they have already thought about the issues and better developed schemas for the issue. Several studies support the elaboration likelihood model as mechanism to explain how consumers process information related to cause-brand alliances. Grau and Folse (2007) found that both low involvement and high involvement participants favorably 30 viewed the alliance, but those who were more involved with the cause had a greater intention to purchase the product associated with the campaign. In addition, participants who were less involved with the cause used donation proximity (local versus national) as a peripheral cue to process the message (Grau & Folse, 2007). These participants had more favorable attitude toward the cause-brand alliance and greater purchase intentions when the cause was local. Hajjat (2003) found that under high involvement, participants had a greater number of thought listings than when involvement was low, indicating that high involvement participants elaborated more on the cause issue and more thoroughly processed the information in the advertisement. By contrast, low involvement consumers focused on peripheral information in the advertisement in evaluating the brand and forming purchase intentions. Berger, Cunningham, and Kozinets (1999) found that for advertisements communicating the details of a cause-brand alliance, consumers who were less involved with the cause did not rely on the specific content of the argument claims to process the advertisement, but rather the fact that the advertisement merely mentioned a cause acted as a peripheral cue that guided processing of the advertisement. In the present study, when consumers are more highly involved with the cause in the cause-brand alliance, it is expected that message content such as fit between the brand and the cause will be processed more carefully and will have more impact in determining the consumers? perceptions of the brand?s motivations, and thus their attitude toward the cause-brand alliance. When the participants are not highly involved with the cause in the alliance, they will not be as inclined to process the message content. In this low involvement condition, non-message cues such as the source of the message may be more 31 influential in affecting cause-brand alliance attitude through their effect on perceived brand motivations. Based on the elaboration likelihood model and previous research, the following relationships were developed: H9: The effect of cause-brand fit on perceived a) altruistic and (b) profit-based brand motivations will be greater for the high (versus low) cause involvement condition. H10: The effect of message source on perceived a) altruistic and b) profit-based brand motivations will be greater for the low (versus high) cause involvement condition. Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude and Purchase Intentions for Cause-Brand Alliance Products A brand?s corporate social responsibility has potential to influence consumers? purchases. Almost half of participants in a study by Ross, Stutts, and Patterson (1990) stated that their product purchases were influenced by the brand?s support of a cause. Smith and Alcorn (1991) found that that nearly half (46%) of participants would change brands to support a socially responsible company, and one third were inclined at some point to purchase a brand because it supported a cause. According to the 2004 Cone Corporate Citizenship survey, when participants were asked to compare their current brand which did not support a cause, to an alternative brand of equal price and quality 32 and supported a cause, 86% of participants responded that they would switch to the brand that supports the cause. Consumers indicate greater purchase intentions for brands with higher levels of corporate social responsibility (Mohr & Webb, 2005), and in some cases consumers indicate a willingness to pay more for products that are made by socially responsible brands (Creyer & Ross, 1997). The relationship between attitude and behavioral intentions is supported by previous literature (Bagozzi, 1981; Bagozzi & Burnkrant, 1979; Mitchell & Olsen, 1981) and Fishbein and Ajzen?s (1975) theory of reasoned action, which connects attitudes to behavior through behavioral intentions. Fishbein and Ajzen define behavioral intentions as ?a person?s subjective probability that he or she will perform some behavior? (p. 288). According to Fishbein and Ajzen, an individual?s attitude toward an object is related to his or her intentions to engage in a behavior related to that object. The more favorably an individual views an object, the greater the likelihood that he or she will intend to perform behaviors that are positively related to that object. In the case of cause-brand alliances, the more favorably a consumer views the alliance, the more likely he or she is to participate in the alliance by purchasing goods that are related to it. The present research defines purchase intention for a cause-brand alliance product as ?an individual?s conscious plan to make an effort to purchase? the product associated with the cause- brand alliance (Spears & Singh, 2004, p. 56). Both previous empirical findings and the theory of reasoned action provided the basis for the following hypothesis: 33 H11: When cause-brand alliance attitude is more favorable, consumers will be more likely to purchase the product affiliated with the cause-brand alliance. Based on the relevant literature and the supporting conceptual framework, the following model is proposed (see Figure 2.1). The model shows the relationships between the six key constructs to be examined in this study: 1) the effect of perceived motivations on cause-brand alliance attitude, 2) the effects of cause-brand fit and message source on cause-brand alliance attitude and perceived motivations, 3) the effect of cause involvement on cause-brand alliance attitude, 4) the moderating role of cause involvement in the effects of cause-brand fit and message source on perceived brand motivations, and 5) the relationship between cause-brand alliance attitude and purchase intentions for cause-brand alliance products. 34 Note. The mediating effect hypothesized by H4 and H7 are not noted separately in the model Figure 2.1. The Conceptual Model and Hypotheses Perceived Altruistic Brand Motivations Perceived Profit-Based Brand Motivations Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude Purchase Intentions for Cause-Brand Alliance Product H3a H3b H6b H9b H10a H5 H2 Consumer Cause Involvement Cause-Brand Fit Message Source (Cause v. Brand) H9a H10b H11 H1a H1b H8 H6a 35 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY The following chapter describes the process of testing the fit of the proposed model and the strength and direction of the hypothesized relationships using an experimental approach. The chapter describes the research design, the stimulus development including the use of two pretests to create the final stimuli for the main experiment, and the methods used for the main experiment. Research Design To test the hypotheses and the proposed model in this study, a 2 (low vs. high cause involvement) x 2 (cause vs. brand message source) x 2 (low vs. high cause-brand fit) between-subjects factorial experimental design was employed. Mock press releases were used as stimuli with which the experimental factors were manipulated. A series of two pretests were administered to students attending Auburn University to determine the brands and cause-brand alliance scenarios used for the mock press release stimuli. The main survey was administered to a national sample of students currently enrolled in a college or university. Stimulus Development Pretest 1 The first pretest was used to identify brands and cause scenarios to use in the main experiment manipulations. Specifically, the researcher aimed at 1) identifying brands which have potentially high and low fit with selected environmental causes 36 and 2) determining cause scenarios that would produce high and low involvement among the target population ? college students. Instrument A self-administered online questionnaire was used to collect data for pretest 1 (see Appendix A for questionnaire). First, 15 brands were selected based on two trade publications reporting brands that were well-liked by college students [?Apple, Facebook Tops for College Students,? by Beth Bulik (2007) in Advertising Age and ?Brand Power, the Top 12 Most Searched-For Apparel Brands Online in February,? by Cecily Hall (2007) in Women?s Wear Daily] interviews with Auburn University students about their evaluation of brands, and observation of students outside of the campus student center to discover which brands of footwear and apparel the students were wearing. The brands were chosen in this manner in order to ensure that the target population would have enough knowledge about the brands to determine the degree of fit between the brand and the cause in the main study. In the first section of the questionnaire, participants were asked to rate their familiarity with each of the 15 brands on a seven-point scale (1 = Not Familiar, 7 = Very Familiar). Three fictitious brands were added to the questionnaire to detect the extent of social desirability in participants? responses (i.e., participants indicating a higher level of brand familiarity than they actually have to be more favorably viewed by others). In the second section of the questionnaire, participants were asked to indicate their agreement with each of five descriptive terms used to describe the brand (To me, this brand is? ) on five 7-point (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree) Likert scale 37 items (appealing, good, pleasant, unfavorable, and likeable) adapted from Spears and Singh (2004) to measure brand attitude. Cronbach?s ? for the brand attitude items for all 15 brands from the pretest data was greater than .87, indicating a high reliability of the scale (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991). The third section of pretest 1 was used to identify the cause involvement manipulation to be used in the main study. Four mock press releases (see Appendix B for mock press releases) were created containing scenarios about one of two environmental causes, water conservation or recycling, each of which was adjusted to potentially arouse high or low levels of involvement among participants. Distance and time variations were the two dimensions in which the cause involvement was manipulated. For the water conservation press releases, the high involvement condition included a press release about water conservation which was intended to create a sense of close proximity of the cause to the participant (i.e., affecting the southeast region of the U.S. as soon as six months in the future), whereas the low involvement condition contained a press release portraying water conservation as an issue relevant to South Africa over the next ten years. For the recycling press releases, the high involvement condition contained a press release about recycling which was intended to create a sense of close proximity of the cause to the participant (i.e., affecting the southeast region of the U.S. as soon as the next six months), whereas the low involvement condition included a press release indicating that landfill use would be affecting England over the next 20 years. To measure each participant?s level of involvement with the issue presented in the press release, participants were instructed to read the mock press release and then indicate 38 their agreement with several statement on a seven-item 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree) adapted from the Zaichkowsky?s (1994) Personal Involvement Inventory: The issue presented in the above press release is: (important, boring, relevant, means nothing, significant, needed, beneficial) to me. This scale was chosen because it measures involvement in a wide variety of situations in a parsimonious manner. The Cronbach?s ? for the cause involvement items was .91 for the water conservation scenario and .93 for the recycling scenario, indicating reliability of the scales. A total of 12 versions of the online questionnaire were created to collect data for the first pretest. Each version contained two mock press releases that varied by environmental cause (recycling or water conservation) and by cause involvement condition (high or low). The order of presenting the press releases was varied among the versions to ensure that order was not influencing participants? responses. Additionally, there were three versions of the section measuring brand attitude which differed only in the order of presenting the brands to the participants again to avoid an order bias. Sampling and Data Collection Procedure The first pretest used a random sample of students enrolled in classes at Auburn University in the semester the study was conducted (Spring 2009). In accordance with university policy, the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) randomly selected 2500 students from a list of undergraduate students who were attending the university. From this pool, the OIR randomly assigned students to each of the 12 versions of the questionnaire and sent them an email inviting them to participate in the pretest which 39 contained a link to the questionnaire assigned to them (see Appendix C for the sample recruitment email script). Two days later, a reminder email was sent out to the students, followed by a last reminder sent in two days after that. Students who decided to participate in the study clicked on a link in the email which directed them to an information page (see Appendix D for the information page). If after reading the information page, students decided to participate in the study, they clicked on a link to the questionnaire provided on the information page. After completing the questionnaire, participants were directed to a webpage in which participants could select a cause out of a list of five to receive a $1.00 donation from the researcher (see Appendix E for the donation question). Participants were then directed to a debriefing page which thanked them for their time and informed them that the press release was fictitious (see Appendix F for the debriefing page). Due to a low response rate of 2% (53 respondents) after the invitation and the two reminder emails had been sent out to 2500 students, a second round of invitation emails were sent out to the same students with changes made in the participant incentive, the emails inviting the students to participant in the study, and the information page. The new incentive was to offer the participants the opportunity to enter a drawing for a chance to win one of ten $50 cash prizes. In this round, participants were not shown the cause donation selection page, but were instructed to click ?Done? on the debriefing page, leading them to a webpage where they could submit their email addresses to be informed of cash prize drawing results (see Appendix G for the revised debriefing page and Appendix H for the email collection webpage). 40 The information page was also revised to reflect the change in incentive, and a message, ?To begin the survey, click ?NEXT? at the bottom of the page,? was posted on the top of the page in a bright red large font to better inform participants how to access the survey (see Appendix I for the revised information page). The recruiting email script was shortened to make it easier for the participants to read and to reflect the change in incentive (see Appendix J for the revised email script). In the first round of data collection, the same email message was used for the initial invitation as well as reminders. However, to increase the likelihood that students would respond favorably by making the email messages more personal, a new reminder email script was composed to send out during the second round of data collection (see Appendix K for the reminder email script). The second round of data collection added 103 more respondents, resulting in a total sample size of 156 for pretest 1. The number of respondents for each of the 12 versions of the questionnaire is presented in Table 3.1. Data Analysis and Results Brand selection. The pretest data were analyzed to ensure that brands reflecting equivalent levels of attitude and familiarity were chosen to be used in the main experiment (see Table 3.2). Before the data were analyzed to select the two existing brands to be used in the main study, the brand familiarity of the fictitious brands was evaluated to ensure that participants were answering the brand familiarity questions honestly. Although three fictitious brands were listed in the questionnaire, only participants? brand familiarity with two fictitious brands (SouthPort and Reed Sterling) 41 Questionnaire Version Cause Involvement Level of First Press Release Cause Involvement Level of Second Press Release Brand Attitude Version N 1 Low water High recycling 1 11 2 High water Low recycling 1 11 3 High recycling Low water 1 11 4 Low recycling High water 1 10 5 Low water High recycling 2 13 6 High water Low recycling 2 9 7 High recycling Low water 2 13 8 Low recycling High water 2 14 9 Low water High recycling 3 19 10 High water Low recycling 3 21 11 High recycling Low water 3 15 12 Low recycling High water 3 9 N = 156 Table 3.1. Press Release Cause Involvement, Brand Attitude Version, and Number of Respondents per Questionnaire Version of Pretest 1 were used in the analysis. The third fictitious brand, Stride, was not used because it may have been perceived as a real brand. While the researchers intended to create a fictitious name for shoes, participants may have thought of the brand Stride chewing gum or the Stride Rite brand of children?s shoes. Each participant?s brand familiarity response for SouthPort and Reed Sterling was examined and a response of 3 or greater on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Very Unfamiliar, 7 = Very Familiar) was determined to be a social acceptability answer. A total of 37 cases were removed from the data set due to the social desirability check, either for not answering the Reed Sterling or SouthPort brand familiarity question (n = 15) or for having a response greater than 3 (n = 22) resulting in a data set of 119 usable responses for further analysis. 42 Brand Brand Familiaritya Mean SD Brand Attitudeb Mean SD Cronbach?s ? Brand Attitude Scale Cell Phones Verizon 6.04 1.59 4.97 1.27 .91 Blackberry 5.92 1.59 5.60 1.12 .88 Apple iPhone 5.92 1.63 5.77 1.23 .92 Outdoor Apparel The North Face 6.27 1.62 5.73 1.39 .94 Columbia Sportswear 5.70 1.21 5.40 1.11 .93 Marmot 3.26 2.38 4.51 1.04 .96 SouthPort* 1.54 1.21 - - - Music Apple iPod 6.64 1.00 6.29 1.01 .88 Sony 6.48 1.01 5.75 1.03 .92 Microsoft Zune 3.38 2.16 4.21 1.01 .93 Shoes Nike 6.48 1.00 5.72 1.13 .93 Adidas 6.03 1.43 5.20 1.21 .94 Rainbow 4.75 2.44 5.05 1.31 .94 Stride* 4.14 2.34 - - - Apparel Old Navy 6.40 1.13 5.36 1.28 .92 Vineyard Vines 3.75 2.49 4.78 1.26 .97 Brooks Brothers 3.71 2.40 4.63 1.08 .97 Reed Sterling* 1.35 .89 - - - a. Brand familiarity was measured on a 7 point scale, 1 = Very Unfamiliar, 7 = Very Familiar b. Brand attitude was measured by level of agreement with five items on a 7-point scale, 1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree * Fictitious brands, only brand familiarity was measured Table 3.2. Pretest 1 Brand Familiarity and Brand Attitude Statistics for each Stimulus Brand 43 The two brands that were selected for the main experiment were The North Face and Old Navy. These two brands were relatively familiar to participants (MThe North Face = 6.2, SD = 1.3; MOld Navy = 6.4, SD = 1.2), and although the t-test reported that the participants? brand attitude toward the two brands were statistically different (t = 3.0, p = .003), their mean scores were similar enough to be used in the study (MThe North Face = 5.7, SD = 1.4; MOld Navy = 5.3, SD = 1.3). In this study, cause-brand fit is operationalized as a cause-brand alliance in a mock press release that represents either high-fit, where the associations that a consumer holds about the cause and the brand are congruent; or low-fit, where the consumer?s associations about the cause and the brand are not congruent. Based on the images of the brands (The North Face promotes an active, outdoor lifestyle while Old Navy sells basic fashion items), it was predicted that The North Face would create a higher cause-brand alliance fit with an environmental cause than would Old Navy, which was later tested in Pretest 2. Cause Involvement. Cause involvement data were analyzed to determine the environmental cause to use in the mock press release in the main experiment (water conservation versus recycling) and to ensure the successful manipulation for high versus low cause involvement in the main study. There was a significant difference in the pretest respondents? cause involvement between the high and low involvement scenarios (Mhigh involvement = 5.5, SD = 1.2; Mlow involvement = 4.8, SD = 1.2; t = 3.3, p < .001) for water conservation. For recycling, respondents? cause involvement scores did not differ significantly between the high and low involvement scenarios (Mhigh involvement = 5.5, SD = 44 1.2; Mlow involvement = 5.0, SD = 1.3; t = 1.7, p = .064). Therefore, water conservation was chosen as the environmental cause that would be used in the main experiment. Pretest 1 identified two brands to be used in the main experiment, The North Face and Old Navy, according to similar levels of familiarity and brand attitude with the target population. Based on the brands? current brand image, it was determined that The North Face would have a high fit and that Old Navy would have a low fit with water conservation. Although water was chosen as the environmental cause that would be used in the main experiment based on a statistically significant difference between consumers? involvement in the high and low conditions, the involvement difference between the two conditions was not as great as the researchers had desired. Adjustments to the cause involvement scenario are necessary to try to induce a greater difference between the high and low involvement conditions. Pretest 2 The purpose of the second pretest was to 1) verify whether the combinations of causes and brands selected from pretest 1 successfully manipulate high versus low cause- brand fit and 2) after adjustments to the cause involvement scenario, reconfirm the water conservation cause involvement manipulation. Instrument An online questionnaire was used for pretest 2 (see Appendix L for questionnaire). Four versions of the questionnaire were created. In the first section of the questionnaire, a mock press release was shown to describe a cause-brand alliance scenario. Using the two brands and the high- and low-involvement water conservation cause scenarios selected 45 from pretest 1, four versions of the mock press release were created so that they would vary in terms of the levels of cause involvement (high or low) and cause-brand fit (high or low) they would elicit (see Appendix M for mock press releases). To induce a greater difference in cause involvement between the high and low conditions, the description of the cause in the mock press releases was slightly altered from pretest 1. The high involvement press release was revised to have less of an informative tone by removing scientific facts about water conservation and instead trying to relate to the participant?s daily life. For example, the press release for pretest 1 explains that water conservation is necessary to preserve the biodiversity in the water systems, protect the food chain, and to have available ?for human consumption in the way of drinking water and recreation,? while the press release for pretest 2 states that water should be conserved for drinking water and for use in boating, fishing and swimming. The low involvement press release was altered to reduce involvement by removing words such as dramatically and threaten and phrases such as ?at such an alarming rate.? The mock press releases used in pretest 2 also differed from those in the first pretest because rather than simply informing participants about a cause, the scenario was describing a partnership between the cause and the brand. To emphasize the partnership, the press release informed readers about the alliance in the first sentence, ?The North Face (Old Navy) has partnered with The Nature Conservancy to help protect?? and in subsequent sentences, ?The North face (Old Navy) realizes that decreased water quality will lead to?? The last sentence of the press release explains how the brand is helping 46 the cause, ?Therefore, to help protect the country?s (South Africa?s) water systems, The North Face (Old Navy) will donate 10% of the purchase price of each North Face jacket sold to The Nature Conservancy?s Freshwater Campaign.? After the mock press release was shown, respondents? cause involvement elicited by the mock press release was measured using the same seven-item7-point Likert scale that was used in pretest 1 (Zaichkowsky, 1994). Then, participants were asked to rate the fit between the brand and the cause they saw on the mock press release using a six-item7-point Likert scale adapted from Becker- Olsen and Hill (2006) (This brand and this cause are: consistent, typical, representative, complementary, fit together, make sense). Sampling and Data Collection Procedure Pretest 2 used a convenience sample of students enrolled in a Consumer Affairs course at Auburn University who participated in the study for extra credit. Each of the 258 students in the class was randomly assigned to one of the four versions of the questionnaire. The researcher visited the class to inform the students about the study and to invite them to participate in the survey. After class, an email was sent to each student with a link to one of the four versions of the questionnaire (see Appendix N for the email script). Clicking on the link led students to an information page and the students completed the survey in the same manner in which they completed the survey in pretest 1 (see Appendix O for the information page). After two reminder emails were sent to the students (see Appendix P for a reminder email), 257 students completed the survey. The number of participants for each of the four versions is presented in table 3.3. 47 Table 3.3. Cause Involvement, Cause-Brand Fit, and Number of Respondents per Questionnaire Version of Pretest 2 Data Analysis and Results Cause-Brand Fit. The Cronbach?s ? for the fit items was .95, demonstrating high reliability of the scale (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991). Pretest 2 data verified the cause-brand fit manipulation. The results indicated that The North Face and water conservation had a higher fit (MThe North Face = 5.3, SD = .89) than Old Navy and water conservation (MOld Navy = 3.8, SD= 1.1) (t = 12.1, p < .001). Cause Involvement. The Cronbach?s ? for the cause involvement items (Zaichkowsky, 1994) was .90, demonstrating high reliability of the scale (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991). Results indicated that the cause involvement evoked from high and low cause involvement conditions for Pretest 2 (Mhigh involvement = 5.4, SD = 1.1; Mlow involvement = 4.7, SD = .95) remained about the same as the results from Pretest 1 (Mhigh involvement = 5.4, SD = 1.3; Mlow involvement = 4.7, SD = 1.1), yet pretest 2 still confirmed the success of the cause involvement manipulation because there was a significant difference between the high and low cause involvement conditions (t = 5.7, p < .001). Questionnaire Version Cause Involvement Level Cause-Brand Fit Level N 1 High High 72 2 Low High 56 3 High Low 63 4 Low Low 66 N = 257 48 Main Experiment The purpose of the main experiment was to test the strength and direction of the hypothesized relationships and to test the fit of the proposed model. Instrument Eight versions of an online questionnaire were used to collect data for the main experiment (see Appendix Q for the questionnaire). The eight versions of the questionnaire were identical except for the experiment stimulus (the mock press release) used to manipulate the three independent variables: cause involvement, message source, and cause-brand fit. The questionnaire contained: 1) an experimental stimulus (mock press release) corresponding to the experimental condition, 2) dependent measures including a cause-brand alliance attitude measure, a perceived brand motivations measure, and a measure for purchase intentions for the cause-brand alliance product, 3) manipulation check measures, and 4) demographic items. Experimental Stimuli To manipulate the three experimental factors, eight mock press releases (2 x 2 x 2 design) about cause-brand alliances were developed based on the results from the two pretests (see Appendix R for the mock press releases used in the main experiment). That is, each press release portrayed cause-brand alliance news using a combination of either high- or low-involvement water conservation cause description and either The North Face or Old Navy to manipulate cause-brand fit (high or low). In addition, to manipulate the message source variable, either the cause or the brand was cited in the mock press release as the announcer of the cause-brand alliance. The message source was 49 emphasized by the constant use of the word we throughout the press release to ensure that participants clearly understood the source of the message. For example, the press release began with ?We (followed by the source of the message, at The North Face, at Old Navy, or at the Nature Conservancy) are happy to announce that we are partnering with?? Participants were informed that in a local newspaper, a press release reported that the brand (The North Face or Old Navy) and The Nature Conservancy were partnering to preserve either South Africa?s or the U.S.?s rivers, lakes, and streams and were instructed to carefully read the press release before answering the next set of questions. To encourage participants to read the press release, they were advised that there would be a brief quiz at the end of the questionnaire to see how much they could remember about the press release. Dependent Measures The dependent measures include perceived altruistic and profit-based brand motivations, cause-brand alliance attitude, and purchase intentions for the cause-brand alliance product. Perceived altruistic and profit-based brand motivations were measured by an eight-item 7-point (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree) Likert scale adapted from Rifon, Choi, Trimble, and Li (2004) to measure perceived brand motivations (e.g., This brand sponsored this cause because ultimately they care about their customers; This brand sponsored this cause to persuade me to buy their products). Cause-brand alliance attitude was measured by a five-item 7-point semantic differential scale (appealing/unappealing, good/bad, pleasant/unpleasant, favorable/unfavorable, likeable/unlikeable) brand attitude scale from Spears and Singh (2004). Participants? 50 intentions to purchase the product associated with the cause-brand alliance described in the mock press release was measured by three items (The likelihood of purchasing this product is, The probability that I would consider buying this product is,, My willingness to buy this product is) on a 7-point rating scale (1= Very Low, 7 = Very High), which was adapted from an instrument developed to measure purchase intention by Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal (1991). Manipulation Check Measures The cause involvement manipulation check was conducted using a 7-point semantic differential scale adapted from Zaichkowsky?s (1994) Personal Involvement Inventory (important/unimportant, boring/interesting, relevant/irrelevant, means nothing/ means a lot, significant/insignificant, beneficial/not beneficial, and needed /not needed). The cause-brand fit manipulation was checked using the same six-item 7-point Likert scale that was used to measure perceived cause-brand fit in the second pretest (cf. Becker-Olsen & Hill, 2006). To check the success of message source manipulation, participants were asked whether the source of the information in the press release was the cause or the brand in a short quiz at the end of the questionnaire. Demographic Items A set of demographic items was included in the questionnaire to better understand the characteristics of the sample and a series of screening questions were asked at the beginning of the questionnaire to ensure that potential participants met the qualification for taking part in the study (i.e. 19-25 years old, attending a 2-year or 4-year school full- time). The screening questions asked participants for their age, the highest level of 51 education completed, whether they were currently attending school, the type of school they were attending. Other demographic questions were intermixed with the screening questions to prevent participants from discerning the qualifications for participating in the study and thus answering the questions in a biased way. These questions included gender, participants? employment status, and the state in which they currently live. Additional demographic questions at the end of the questionnaire included major, class standing, and the racial group of which the participant considers himself or herself to be a member. Sampling and Data Collection Procedure The sample for the main experiment consisted of students currently enrolled full- time in a two-year or four-year college or university in the U.S. Marketers are interested in learning about the shopping behavior of this generation of consumers because the millennial generation has considerably more buying power, stronger influence on family purchases, and has a greater population than any previous generation (Nowak, Thach, & Olsen, 2006; O?Donnell, 2006). More importantly, this generation of consumers is committed to supporting causes that they care about. According to a 2008 Cone Cause Evolution Study, 88% of participants in the millennial generation would switch from using a brand that does not support a cause to one that supports a cause, given that price and quality were equal, and 51% had purchased a product associated with a cause in the past 12 months (Cone, Inc., 2008). The sample was acquired through a consumer panel of a national market research company. The company recruited the consumer panel members by posting a message on their social network sites (e.g. Facebook, Myspace, WeeWorld) inviting them to 52 participate in the study. To ensure that each panel member only participated in one of the eight experimental conditions, links to the experimental websites were sent out one at a time until each condition had a total of at least 150 respondents. The data collection period lasted 13 days. Panel members who clicked on the link in the message from the market research company were directed to an information page (see Appendix S for the information page). If they decided to participate in the study after reading the information page, they clicked on a link to the experimental website which contained a randomly assigned experimental stimulus (mock press release), dependent measures, manipulation check measures, demographic measures, and a debriefing page. In the debriefing page, participants were thanked for their time and informed that the press release was fictitious to try to create as close to real conditions as possible for the experiment (see Appendix T for the debriefing page). To encourage participation, the market research company offered respondents an incentive of virtual currency or a similar type of incentive appropriate for their social network site. Participants learned about the incentive through the market research company?s invitation to be a part of the study. A total of 5,731 panel members clicked on the message from the market research company inviting them to participate in the study and 5, 354 of these members clicked on the link to an experimental website. After clicking the experimental website link, 1,359 panel members met the qualifications to participate in the study and completed the questionnaire. Eleven of the cases were deleted after being determined unusable due to the participant leaving more than 20% of the questionnaire unanswered. An additional 78 53 cases were unusable and therefore removed from the data set because the participant gave the same response for all of their answers in the questionnaire (e.g., all 1?s or all 7?s). In addition, 56 participants who answered the question, ?What is your major? with a response that did not make sense (e.g., restaurant worker, the good life, football, bachelors, or listed a series of random letters) were removed from the data set, leaving 1,214 usable responses. All data variables were examined for outliers and possible violations of normality and linearity. Although several univariate outliers were discovered, outliers comprised less than 2% of the cases, and therefore were not removed from the data set (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Multivariate outliers were revealed by calculating Mahalanobis distance statistic for each of the four continuous variables. A total of 13 multivariate outliers were detected and removed from the data set, leaving a sample size of 1201. Normality was assured by comparing the plotted data points to the diagonal line of a normal probability plot (Stevens, 2002) and linearity was tested by examining a bivariate scatterplot to ensure the data points created a plot with an elliptical shape (Tabachinick & Fidell, 2001). The data were further cleaned by evaluating the message source manipulation, which was checked by a brief quiz at the end of the questionnaire. Participants were instructed to answer the following question concerning the press release that they read. The question asked, ?Who is the source of the message?? Participants could choose an answer from a drop-down menu, either the brand (i.e., Old Navy or The North Face) or the cause (i.e., The Nature Conservancy). The message source manipulation was 54 determined to be successful if the participants correctly responded to the question. Out of the 1201 remaining respondents, a total of 459 respondents (38.2% of participants) did not correctly identify the source of the message and were removed from the data set, leaving a final usable sample size of 742. 55 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS This chapter contains results from the main experiment which tested the fit of the proposed model and the strength and direction of the hypothesized relationships. The sample demographics and the results of the manipulation checks, measurement validity and reliability checks, and hypothesis testing for the main experiment are presented. Sample Description Sample demographics were similar across all eight experimental groups (see Table 4.1). The sample consisted of college students between the ages of 19-25. The sample was almost evenly divided among male (49%) and female college students (51%). Each state in the country was represented by at least one participant, with California (16%) and New York (10%) having the greatest representation, followed by Texas (5%) and Florida (5%) (see Appendix U for sample distribution by state). Most respondents considered themselves to be part of the Caucasian/White racial group (57%), followed by Asian/Pacific Islander (23%), African American/Black (7%), Hispanic (6%), bi-racial (5%), other (2%), and Native American/Alaskan Native (.5%) Participants were from all class standings, with the most participants in their sophomore year (38%) followed by their junior year (25%) and freshman year (22%), with the least participants from their senior year of college (15%). Students represented a wide variety of majors across 56 Gr ou p 1 CI Fm Gr ou p 2 CI FM Gr ou p 3 ciF m Gr ou p 4 ciF M Gr ou p 5 CI fm Gr ou p 6 CI fM Gr ou p 7 Ci fm Gr ou p 8 cif M To tal Ca teg ori es f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % Ge nd er Fe ma le 58 56 .3 42 51 .9 39 43 .3 50 52 .6 57 53 .8 45 52 .3 59 57 .8 41 51 .9 39 1 52 .7 Ma le 45 43 .7 39 48 .1 51 56 .7 45 47 .4 49 46 .2 41 47 .7 43 42 .2 38 48 .1 35 1 47 .3 na 10 3 81 90 95 10 6 86 10 2 79 74 2 Eth nic ity Af ric an Am eri can /B lac k 3 2 .9 9 11 .1 6 6 .7 8 8 .6 7 6 .7 3 3 .5 7 6 .9 5 6 .4 48 6 .5 As ian /Pa cif ic Isl an de r 29 28 .2 20 24 .7 22 24 .7 17 18 .3 20 19 .2 22 25 .6 24 23 .5 15 19 .2 16 9 22 .8 Ca uc asi an /W hit e 60 58 .3 42 51 .9 52 58 .4 51 54 .8 66 63 .5 53 61 .6 53 52 45 57 .7 42 2 56 .9 Hi spa nic 3 2 .9 7 8 .6 3 3 .4 8 8 .6 4 3 .8 3 3 .5 10 9 .9 8 10 .3 46 6 .2 Na tiv e Am eri can /A las ka n Na tiv e 1 1 1 1 .1 1 1 .1 1 1 .2 4 . 54 Bi -R aci al 6 5 .8 1 1 .2 3 3 .4 4 4 .3 5 4 .8 3 3 .5 7 6 .9 5 6 .4 34 4 .6 Ot he r 1 1 2 2 .5 2 2 .2 4 4 .3 2 1 .9 1 1 .2 12 1 .6 na 10 3 81 89 93 10 4 86 10 1 78 73 5 Cl ass St an din g Fre shm an 22 21 .4 21 26 .3 21 23 .6 21 22 .3 25 24 21 24 .4 23 22 .8 11 14 .1 16 5 So ph om ore 34 33 30 37 .5 28 31 .5 40 42 .6 44 42 .3 32 37 .2 39 38 .6 29 37 .2 27 6 a. No t in clu din g c ase s w ith m iss ing va lue s No te. C I = H igh C au se Inv olv em en t, F = Hi gh C au se- Br an d F it, M = C au se Me ssa ge So urc e, ci = l ow ca use in vo lve me nt, f = l ow ca use -br an d f it, m = b ran d m ess ag e s ou rce (C on tin ue d) Ta ble 4. 1. De mo gra ph ic Ch ara cte ris tic s o f e ach St im ulu s G rou p o f th e M ain Ex pe rim en t S am ple 57 T ab le 4.1 (c on tin ue d) Gr ou p 1 CI Fm Gr ou p 2 CI FM Gr ou p 3 ciF m Gr ou p 4 ciF M Gr ou p 5 CI fm Gr ou p 6 CI fM Gr ou p 7 Ci fm Gr ou p 8 cif M To tal Ca teg ori es f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % Jun ior 31 30 .1 16 2 0 29 32 .6 18 19 .1 22 21 .2 22 2 5.6 20 1 9.8 28 3 5.9 18 6 Se nio r 16 15 .5 13 16 .3 11 21 .4 15 1 6 13 12 .5 11 1 2.8 19 1 8.8 10 1 2.8 10 8 na 10 3 80 89 94 10 4 86 10 1 78 73 5 Ma jor Ar t & M usi c 2 1 .9 4 4 .9 8 8 .9 3 3 .2 3 2 .8 5 5 .8 7 6 .9 7 8 .9 39 5 .3 Bi olo gic al Sc ien ces 11 10 .7 6 7 .4 11 12 .2 7 7 .4 11 10 .4 13 1 5.1 6 5 .9 12 1 5.2 77 1 0.4 Bu sin ess 23 22 .3 10 12 .3 10 11 .1 13 13 .7 13 12 .3 7 8 .1 19 1 8.6 9 11 .4 10 4 14 Co mp ute r S cie nc e 6 5 .8 5 6 .2 9 10 10 10 .5 8 7 .5 10 1 1.6 9 8 .8 5 6 .3 62 8 .4 Ed uc ati on 5 4 .9 6 7 .4 4 4 .4 7 7 .4 6 5 .7 5 5 .8 3 2 .9 1 1 .3 37 5 En gin eer ing 6 5 .8 4 4 .9 6 6 .7 6 6 .3 5 4 .7 11 1 2.8 9 8 .8 6 7 .6 53 7 .1 En vir on me nta l & W ild life Sc ien ces 2 1 .9 1 1 .1 3 3 .2 3 2 .8 1 1 .2 3 2 .9 13 1 .8 He alt hc are 7 6 .8 9 11 .1 5 5 .6 7 7 .4 9 8 .5 2 2 .3 5 4 .9 6 7 .6 50 6 .7 Hu ma n E co log y 2 1 .9 1 1 .2 2 2 .2 3 3 .2 5 4 .7 4 4 .7 4 3 .9 1 1 .3 22 3 Hu ma nit ies 10 9 .7 12 14 .8 12 13 .3 11 11 .6 14 1 3.2 12 1 4 10 9 .8 7 8 .9 88 1 1.9 Jou rna lis m & Co mm un ica tio n 3 3 .7 3 3 .3 4 4 .2 5 4 .7 1 1 .2 1 .9 8 1 1 .3 18 2 .4 La w 3 2 .9 1 1 .2 2 2 .2 4 4 .2 4 3 .8 5 5 .8 5 4 .9 3 3 .8 27 3 .6 Ma th & Ph ysi cal Sc ien ces 4 3 .9 3 3 .7 9 1 0 1 1 .1 6 5 .7 5 5 .8 5 4 .9 11 1 3.9 44 5 .9 a. N ot inc lud ing ca ses w ith m iss ing va lue s No te. C I = H igh C au se Inv olv em en t, F = Hi gh C au se- Br an d F it, M = C au se Me ssa ge So urc e, ci = l ow ca use in vo lve me nt, f = l ow ca use -br an d f it, m = b ran d m ess ag e s ou rce (C on tin ue d) 58 Ta ble 4. 1 ( co nti nu ed ) Gr ou p 1 CI Fm Gr ou p 2 CI FM Gr ou p 3 ciF m Gr ou p 4 ciF M Gr ou p 5 CI fm Gr ou p 6 CI fM Gr ou p 7 cif m Gr ou p 8 cif M To tal Ca teg ori es f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % Be ha vio ral Sc ien ces 17 1 6.5 9 11 .1 4 4 .4 9 9 .5 7 6 .6 2 2 .3 10 9 .8 6 7 .6 64 8 .6 Ve ter ina ry Me dic ine 1 1 .1 1 .9 4 1 1 .2 1 1 .3 4 .5 4 Ot he r 5 4 .9 8 9 .9 3 3 .3 7 7 .4 6 5 .7 2 2 .3 6 5 .9 3 3 .8 40 5 .4 na 10 3 81 90 95 10 6 86 10 2 79 74 2 Ins titu tio n 2- ye ar 25 2 4.3 14 1 7.3 15 1 6.7 24 2 5.3 24 2 2.6 20 2 3.3 20 1 9.6 20 2 5.3 16 2 4-y ear 78 7 5.7 67 8 2.7 75 8 3.3 71 7 4.7 82 7 7.4 66 7 6.7 82 8 0.4 59 7 4.7 58 0 na 10 3 81 90 95 10 6 88 10 2 79 74 2 a. No t in clu din g c ase s w ith m iss ing va lue s No te. C I = H igh C au se Inv olv em en t, F = Hi gh C au se- Br an d F it, M = C au se Me ssa ge So urc e, ci = l ow ca use in vo lve me nt, f = low ca use -br an d f it, m = b ran d m ess ag e s ou rce 59 campus, with the largest number of students studying business (14%), humanities (12%), and biological sciences (10%). The majority of students were attending a four-year rather than a two-year institution (22%). Manipulation Checks Manipulation checks were conducted for each of the independent variables (message source, cause-brand fit, and cause involvement). The message source manipulation check was conducted during the data cleaning process as described earlier. Before conducting a t-test to detect any significant differences between the means of the high and low cause-brand fit conditions, the unidimensionality of the cause-brand fit scale was checked using principle components analysis with varimax rotation, and the reliability of the scale was checked by Cronbach?s alpha coefficient. Principle components analysis confirmed that the cause-brand fit scale was unidimensional (see Table 4.2). Cronbach?s alpha for the scale was .93, and was determined to be reliable as it was greater than .7 (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991). The mean score of the cause-brand fit manipulation check measure in the high fit condition was greater than that in the low-fit condition (Mhigh fit = 4.8, SD = 1.1; Mlow fit = 4.4, SD = 1.2; t = 4.4, p < .001), indicating that the cause-brand fit manipulation was successful. Principle components analysis with varimax rotation confirmed the unidimensionality of the cause involvement construct (see Table 4.3). The Cronbach?s alpha of the scale was .94, indicating a high level of reliability. Although data analysis for pretest 1 and pretest 2 results indicated a statistically significant difference between the high and low involvement conditions, the results of a t-test for the main experiment data failed to find a significant difference between the conditions, demonstrating that the 60 Cause-Brand Fit Scale Item Factor Loadings The North Face (Old Navy) and The Nature Conservancy are consistent with each other. .83 The North Face (Old Navy) and The Nature Conservancy together is a typical match. .81 The North Face (Old Navy) and The Nature Conservancy represent each other well. .89 The North Face (Old Navy) and The Nature Conservancy complement each other. .89 The North Face (Old Navy) and The Nature Conservancy fit together well. .90 The North Face (Old Navy) and The Nature Conservancy together make sense. .87 Eigenvalue 4.49 Variance Explained 74.87% Table 4.2. Factor Loadings Confirming Unidimensionality of the Cause-Brand Fit Construct Cause Involvement Scale Item Factor Loadings Unimportant/ Important .87 Boring/ Interesting .84 Irrelevant/ Relevant .86 Means Nothing/ Means a lot .85 Insignificant/ Significant .88 Not Needed/ Needed .85 Not Beneficial/Beneficial .83 Eigenvalue 5.11 Variance Explained 72.98% Table 4.3. Factor Loadings Confirming Unidimensionality of the Cause Involvement Construct 61 cause involvement manipulation was not successful (Mhigh involvement = 5.29, Mlow involvement = 5.28, t = .08, p = .939). The means of the high and low cause involvement conditions were in the anticipated direction, and thus the researcher decided to continue with hypothesis testing as if the cause involvement manipulation was successful. In addition, the researcher conducted further analysis after replacing the cause involvement factor (manipulated variable) with a new cause involvement variable created by splitting respondents into two groups (high vs. low cause involvement groups) using a median split based on the respondents? score on the cause involvement manipulation check measure. The high and low cause involvement groups? mean scores on the cause involvement manipulation check items were 6.27 and 4.21, respectively, which were statistically different (t = 35.22, p < .001). Measurement Validity and Reliability The validity and reliability of each of the dependent variables (perceived brand motivations, cause-brand alliance attitude, and purchase intention) was evaluated before conducting further analysis for the hypothesis testing. Prior use of the perceived brand motivations instrument indicated that the scale was comprised of two factors, altruistic and profit-based brand motivations (Harben & Kwon, working paper). Maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted for brand motivations to verify the fit of the hypothesized model using AMOS 17.0 (see Figure 4.1). Full 62 C are I nfo rm ati on R igh t Ge nu ine Co nc ern Pe rsu ad e Pro fits Im ag e Be ne fits A ltru ist ic P rof it-B ase d .78 ** * .83 ** * -.0 1 .64 ** * .65 ** * .59 ** * .83 ** * .80 ** * .61 ** * p < .00 1 Fig ure 4. 1. Th e 8 -In dic ato r C FA M od el for Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic an d P rof it-B ase d B ran d M oti va tio ns wi th Sta nd ard ize d C oe ffi cie nts ?2 = 3 24 .4, df = 19 , p < .00 1 CF I = .8 6, IFI = .86 , N FI = . 85 RM SE A = . 14 7 63 information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) using the expectation maximization (EM) algorithm addressed the problem of missing data. The chi-square test (?2 = 324.4, df = 19, p < .001) did not suggest a good fit of the model. However, given that the chi-square test is sensitive to sample size (Bentler, 1990), other fit measures were considered better indications of model fit, including the normed fit index (NFI), the incremental fit index (IFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The incremental fit indices were less than .95 (CFI = .86, IFI = .86, NFI = .85), demonstrating a poor fit of the model (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and the RMSEA (.147) also suggested an unacceptable fit of the model (Loehlin, 2004). Convergent validity was evaluated by examining the path coefficients between each indicator variable and its factor (see Table 4.4). Genuine Concern, an indicator on the altruistic factor, did not significantly load on the factor (?* = -.01, p < .902) and was removed from the model and another CFA was conducted (see Figure 4.2). In the revised model, the Chi square test (?2 = 163.0, df = 13, p < .001) once again did not suggest a good model fit. Incremental fit indices were closer to .95 (CFI = .92, IFI = .93, NFI = .92); however, the RMSEA still did not support a good fit. (RMSEA = .125). Examination of the path coefficients (see Table 4.5) indicated that one variable, Profits, on the profit factor was less than .65 (?* = .59, p < .001) and was therefore considered a weak indicator of the factor (Comrey & Lee, 1992). Another CFA was then conducted with a revised model after eliminating the Profits indicator. The Chi Square test (?2 = 44.2, df = 8, p < .001) did not indicate a good fit of the model. The incremental fit indices for this model were all above .95, (CFI = .98, IFI = .98, NFI = .97) and the 64 Parameter Item Label Est. S.E. T Factor Loading [Brand] supported The Nature Conservancy because ultimately they care about their customers. Care 1.00 [Brand] really cares about getting The Nature Conservancy information to their customers. Information .97 .05 18.83*** [Brand] partnered with The Nature Conservancy because morally it was the right thing to do. Right .79 .05 16.11*** [Brand] does not have a genuine concern for the welfare of their customers. Genuine Concern -.01 .06 -.12 [Brand] partnered with The Nature Conservancy to persuade me to buy their products. Persuade 1.00 [Brand] partnered with The Nature Conservancy because ultimately they care about their profits. Profits .92 .07 13.49*** [Brand] partnered with The Nature Conservancy because joining with a cause creates a positive corporate image. Image 1.21 .07 17.12*** Ultimately, [Brand] benefits by partnering with The Nature Conservancy. Benefits 1.10 .07 16.86*** Factor Covariance Profit ? Altruistic .71 .07 10.10*** Variances Altruistic 1.41 .13 11.22*** Profit .96 .11 9.09*** e1 .91 .08 12.14*** e2 .62 .06 9.80*** e3 1.22 .08 16.18*** e4 2.60 .14 19.20*** e5 1.34 .08 16.62*** e6 1.50 .09 17.27*** e7 .65 .06 11.22*** e8 .66 .05 12.54*** *** p < .001 Note: [Brand] refers to The North Face or Old Navy Table 4.4. Unstandardized Parameter Estimates for the 8-Indicator CFA Model for Perceived Brand Motivations 65 ** * p < .00 1 Fig ure 4. 2. Th e 7 -In dic ato r C FA M od el for Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic an d P rof it- Ba sed B ran d M oti va tio ns wi th Sta nd ard ize d C oe ffi cie nts Ca re Inf orm ati on Ri gh t Pe rsu ad e Pro fits Im ag e Be ne fits A ltru ist ic Pro fit- Ba sed .78 ** * .83 ** * .64 ** * .65 ** * .59 ** * .83 ** * .80 ** * .61 ?2 = 1 63 .0, df = 13 , p < .00 1 CF I = .9 2, IFI = .93 , N FI = . 92 RM SE A = . 12 5 66 Parameter Est. S.E. T Factor Loading Care 1.00 Information .97 .05 18.83*** Right .79 .05 16.11*** Persuade 1.00 Profits .92 .07 13.49*** Image 1.21 .07 17.12*** Benefits 1.10 .07 16.86*** Factor Covariance Profit ? Altruistic .71 .07 10.10*** Variances Altruistic 1.41 .13 11.22*** Profit .96 .11 9.09*** e1 .91 .08 12.14*** e2 .62 .06 9.80*** e3 1.22 .08 16.18*** e4 1.34 .08 16.62*** e5 1.50 .09 17.27*** e6 .65 .06 11.22*** e7 .66 .05 12.54*** *** p < .001 Table 4.5. Unstandardized Parameter Estimates for the 7-Indicator CFA Model for Perceived Brand Motivations RMSEA was .078, indicating an acceptable fit of the model. Although Persuade on the profit factor had a structure coefficient lower than .65, it was retained in the model because the fit of the model was acceptable and it is desirable to have at least three indicators for a latent variable (see Figure 4.3 for the model and see Table 4.6 for path coefficients). Maximum likelihood CFA was conducted for the measurement model containing indicators for cause-brand alliance attitude and purchase intentions to confirm the convergent and discriminant validity of the instruments for these two constructs (see 67 ** * p < .00 1 Fig ure 4. 3. Th e 6 -In dic ato r C FA M od el for Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic an d P rof it- Ba sed B ran d M oti va tio ns wi th Sta nd ard ize d C oe ffi cie nts Ca re Inf orm ati on Ri gh t Pe rsu ad e Im ag e Be ne fits Al tru ist ic P rof it-B ase d .78 ** * .83 ** * .65 ** * .59 ** * .85 ** * .80 ** * .63 ?2 = 4 4.2 , d f = 8, p < . 00 1 CF I = .9 8, IFI = .98 , N FI = . 97 RM SE A = . 07 8 68 Parameter Est. S.E. T Factor Loading Care 1.00 Information .98 .05 18.99*** Right .79 .05 16.16*** Persuade 1.00 Image 1.35 .09 15.32*** Benefits 1.20 .08 15.21*** Factor Covariances Profit ? Altruistic .67 .07 9.88*** Variances Altruistic 1.39 .13 11.21*** Profit .80 .10 8.11*** e1 .93 .08 12.40*** e2 .61 .06 9.79*** e3 1.22 .08 16.21*** e4 1.50 .09 17.15*** e5 .58 .07 8.96*** e6 .65 .06 11.28*** *** p < .001 Table 4.6. Unstandardized Parameter Estimates for the 6-Indicator CFA Model for Perceived Brand Motivations Figure 4.4). The Chi square test (?2 = 64.3, df = 19, p < .001) did not indicate a good fit of the model. The incremental fit indices (CFI = .99, IFI = .99, NFI = .99) and RMSEA (.057) indicated an acceptable fit of the model. The structure coefficients for the indicator variables of each factor were significant (all ?* > .77, p < .001), confirming convergent validity for each instrument (see Table 4.7). Correlation between cause-brand alliance attitude and purchase intention (r = .37) was less than .8, confirming discriminant validity of the instruments (John & Benet-Mart?nez, 2000). Cronbach?s alphas for items loading on each factor revealed acceptable reliability of all instruments including perceived 69 * ** p < . 00 1 F igu re 4.4 . T he C FA M od el for Pu rch ase In ten tio ns an d C au se- Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e w ith St an da rdi zed C oe ffi cie nts Lik eli ho od Pro ba bil ity W illi ng ne ss Go od Ple asa nt Fa vo rab le Like ab le Pu rch ase Int en tio n Ca use -B ran d A llia nc e At titu de .86 ** * .91 ** * .90 ** * .77 ** * .79 ** * .86 ** * .86 ** * .37 Ap pe ali ng .84 ** * ?2 = 6 4.3 , d f = 19 , p < .00 1 CF I = .9 9, IFI = .99 , N FI = . 99 RM SE A = . 05 7 70 Parameter Item Label Est. S.E. T Factor Loading The likelihood of purchasing a [Brand] jacket Likelihood 1.00 The probability that I would consider buying a [Brand] jacket Probability 1.06 .03 32.74*** My willingness to buy a [Brand] jacket Willingness 1.05 .03 32.09*** Factor Loading Unappealing/Bad Appealing 1.00 Bad/Good Good .96 .04 22.74*** Unpleasant/Pleasant Pleasant .99 .04 24.26 Unfavorable/Favorable Favorable 1.05 .04 25.02 Unlikeable/Likeable Likeable 1.06 .04 25.25*** Factor Covariance Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude - Purchase Intention .60 .07 8.34*** Variances Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude 1.17 .10 12.16*** Purchase Intention 2.26 .16 14.28*** e1 .77 .06 13.98*** e2 .52 .05 10.39*** e3 .61 .05 11.72*** e4 .78 .05 16.60*** e5 .63 .04 16.21*** e6 .48 .03 14.97*** e7 .45 .03 14.19*** e8 .45 .03 14.05*** *** p < .001 Note: [Brand] refers to The North Face or Old Navy Table 4.7. Unstandardized Parameter Estimates for the CFA Model for Purchase Intentions and Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude 71 altruistic motivations (? = .79), perceived profit-based motivations (? = .79), cause-brand alliance attitude (? = .91), and product purchase intention (? = .92). Hypothesis Testing Results Single-Group SEM First, a single-group structural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted to test all hypotheses except for the moderating (H9 and H10) and mediating effect (H4 and H7) hypotheses. The model consisted of four latent endogenous variables and 17 observed variables (of which three were exogenous variables) and is presented in Figure 4.5. The cause involvement variable used in this model was the original experimental manipulation, not the median split groups. Fit indices from this model yielded inconsistent results. Although the chi-square test (?2 = 605.5, df = 112, p < .001) did not support a good fit of the model, given that this test result is sensitive to sample size (Bentler, 1990), incremental fit indices and RMSEA are better measures of the model fit for the present study. The incremental fit indices did not exceed .95 (CFI = .92, TLI =.89, IFI = .92, NFI = .91), but the RMSEA (.077) suggested an acceptable fit of the model. The regression coefficients indicated that both altruistic (?* = .43, p < .001) and profit-based (?* = .34, p < .001) brand motivations positively influenced cause-brand alliance attitude, supporting H1(a) but not H1(b). Cause-brand fit did not have a significant effect on cause-brand alliance attitude, failing to support H2 (?* = -.03, p = .346). 72 *** p < .001 * p < .05 Note. Standardized coefficients from the SEM with the manipulated cause involvement variable listed first. Coefficients for the SEM with the median-split cause involvement variable are provided in parentheses Note: Dashed lines indicate non-significant relationships at the p = .05 level Figure 4.5. Single-Group SEM Model with Standardized Coefficients Perceived Altruistic Brand Motivations Perceived Profit-Based Brand Motivations Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude Purchase Intentions for Cause-Brand Alliance Product .10* -.02 -.07 -.02 Consumer Cause Involvement Cause-Brand Fit Message Source (Cause v. Brand) .43*** (.26***) .34*** (.27***) -.02 (.55***) -.06 -.03 (-.02) .37*** (.36***) Median Split Cause Involvement: ?2 = 748.2, df = 112, p < .001 CFI = .90, IFI = .90, NFI = .89 RMSEA = .088 Manipulated Cause Involvement: ?2 = 605.5, df = 112, p < .001 CFI = .92, IFI = .92, NFI = .91 RMSEA = .077 73 H3 was only partially supported as high cause-brand fit resulted in greater perceived altruistic brand motivations (?* = .10, p = .015), supporting H3(a), but the relationship between cause-brand fit and profit-based motivations (H3b) was not significant (?* = - .02, p = .656). It was predicted that when the message source is the cause (rather than the brand), consumers would have a more favorable cause-brand alliance attitude and perceived brand motivations would be a) more altruistic and b) less profit-based. In other words, when the source of the message was the cause, message source was predicted to have a positive relationship with cause brand alliance attitude and altruistic motivations and a negative relationship with profit-based motivations. However, findings show that the source of the message did not significantly impact consumers? cause-brand alliance attitude, rejecting H5 (?* = -.02, p = .555). Furthermore, message source did not have a significant effect on perceived altruistic motivations (?* = -.06, p = .148) and therefore H6(a) was not supported. The relationship between message source and perceived profit- based brand motivations did not reach significance at the .05 level, and could be considered only marginally significant (?* = -.07, p = .088), failing to provide support for H6(b). Regression coefficients indicate that cause involvement did not significantly influence cause-brand alliance attitude (?* = -.02, p = .576), and therefore H8 was rejected (see Table 4.8 for regression coefficients). A more favorable cause-brand alliance attitude induces increased purchase intention for the product associated with the cause-brand alliance (?* = .37, p < .001), providing support for H11. 74 M an ipu lat ed M ed ian Sp lit C au se Inv olv em en t C au se Inv olv em en t HP Pa th Es t. S.E . T Es t. S.E . t H1 (a) Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d M oti va tio ns ? C au se Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e .37 .04 10 .07 ** * .21 .03 7.0 2* ** H1 (b) Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d M oti va tio ns ? C au se Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e .39 .05 8.0 1* ** .29 .04 7.1 4* ** H2 Ca use -B ran d F it ? C au se- Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e -.0 7 .07 -.9 4 -.0 3 .06 -.5 2 H3 (a) Ca use -B ran d F it ? Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d Mo tiv ati on s .23 .10 2.4 3* .23 .10 2.4 3* H3 (b) Ca use -B ran d F it ? Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d Mo tiv ati on s -.0 3 .07 -.4 5 -.0 3 .07 -.4 5 H5 Me ssa ge So urc e ? C au se- Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e -.0 4 .07 -.5 9 -.0 4 .06 -.6 5 H6 (a) Me ssa ge So urc e ? Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d Mo tiv ati on s -.1 4 .10 -1. 45 -.1 4 .10 -1. 44 H6 (b) Me ssa ge So urc e ? Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d Mo tiv ati on s -.1 3 .07 -1. 70 -.1 3 .07 -1. 71 H8 Ca use In vo lve me nt ? C au se- Br an d A llia nc e At titu de -.0 4 .07 -.5 9 1.0 6 .07 15 .16 ** * H1 1 Ca use -B ran d A llia nc e A ttit ud e ? Pu rch ase Int en tio ns for C au se- Br an d A llia nc e P rod uc t .54 .06 9.0 8* ** .55 .06 8.7 4* ** * ** p < . 00 1 * p < . 05 T ab le 4.8 . U nst an da rdi zed Pa ram ete r E sti ma tes fo r th e H yp oth ese s i n t he Si ng le- Gr ou p S EM M od el in Fig ure 4. 5 75 Results from the current SEM model provide insight into the mediating role of perceived brand motivations on the relationships between cause-brand fit and cause- brand alliance attitude (H4) and message source and cause-brand alliance attitude (H7). The finding that cause-brand fit did not directly influence cause-brand alliance attitude (H2), combined with the significant relationship between cause-brand fit and altruistic brand motivations (H3a) and the significant effect of altruistic brand motivations on cause-brand alliance attitude (H1a) indicates that the relationship between cause-brand fit and cause-brand alliance attitude is mediated by perceived altruistic brand motivations, supporting H4(a). Perceived profit-based brand motivations did not mediate the relationship between cause-brand fit and cause-brand alliance attitude (failing to support H4b) because there was no significant relationship between cause-brand fit and perceived profit-based brand motivations (H3b). Lack of a significant relationship between message source and perceived altruistic brand motivations indicates that altruistic motivations do not mediate the relationship between message source and cause-brand alliance attitude, failing to support H7(a). The marginally significant relationship between message source and perceived profit-based brand motivations (H6b) suggests that profit-based motivations may mediate the effect of message source on cause-brand alliance attitude, yet the relationship failed to reach significance at the .05 level in this study. Therefore, H7(b) was not supported. Multiple-Group SEM Multiple-group SEM with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted to test the hypotheses that cause involvement moderates the relationships between cause-brand fit (H9) and message source (H10) on perceived brand motivations (see Figure 4.6). 76 * p < .05 *** p < .001 Note. Standardized coefficients for the high cause involvement condition listed first. Standardized coefficients for the low cause involvement condition in parentheses. Note. Dashed lines indicate non-significant relationships at the p = .05 level Figure 4.6. Standardized Coefficients from the Multiple-Group SEM Unconstrained Model Perceived Altruistic Brand Motivations Perceived Profit-Based Brand Motivations Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude Purchase Intentions for Cause-Brand Alliance Product Cause-Brand Fit Message Source (Cause v. Brand) .12* (.08) -.03 (-.01) -.14* (.04) -.11 (-.03) .41*** (.44***) .39*** (.30***) .37*** (.37***) ?2 = 688.9, df = 194, p < .001 CFI = .92, IFI = .92, NFI = .89 RMSEA = .059 77 Hypothesis 9 would be supported if the effect of cause-brand fit on perceived brand motivations was greater under the high involvement condition than under the low involvement condition. H10 would be supported if the effect of message source on perceived brand motivations was greater under the low involvement condition than under the high involvement condition. A constrained model held the regression coefficients from cause-brand fit and message source to altruistic and profit-based motivations equal for both the high and low involvement conditions. The unconstrained model allowed the regression coefficients from cause-brand fit and message source to perceived brand motivations to be free and the two models were compared to test the hypotheses. The Chi square difference test was conducted to determine if there was a significant difference in the fit measures between the constrained and unconstrained models. The results of the test (??2 = 5.96, ?df = 4, p = .284) failed to show a significant difference between the models. Although not all of the relationships are statistically significant, several are in the hypothesized direction and therefore are worth noting. As predicted in H9, the effect of cause-brand fit on altruistic (?* = .12, p = .04) and profit- based (?* = -.03, p = .623) motivations was greater in the high involvement condition than the effect of cause-brand fit on altruistic (?* = .08, p = .156) and profit-based (?* = - .01, p = .855) motivations in the low cause involvement condition (see Table 4.9). Results were not in the direction predicted by H10. Whether the source of the message was the cause or the brand had less impact on consumers? perceived altruistic (?* = .04, p = .531) and profit-based (?* = -.03, p = .619) brand motivations under low involvement conditions than the impact of message source on perceived altruistic 78 Hi gh C au se Lo w Ca us e I nv olv em en t In vo lve me nt HP Pa th Es t. S.E . T Es t. S. E. t H1 (a) Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d M oti va tio ns ? C au se- Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e .31 .05 6.6 2* ** .43 .06 7.5 8* ** H1 (b) Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d M oti va tio ns ? C au se- Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e .41 .07 6.2 7* ** .37 .07 5.1 2* ** H9 (a) Ca use -B ran d F it ? Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d Mo tiv ati on s .28 .14 2.0 5* .19 .13 1.4 2 H9 (b) Ca use -B ran d F it ? Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d Mo tiv ati on s -.0 5 .10 -.4 9 -.0 2 .11 -.1 8 H1 0(a ) Me ssa ge So urc e ? Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d Mo tiv ati on s -.3 4 .14 -2. 44 * .08 .13 .63 H1 0(b ) Me ssa ge So urc e ? Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d Mo tiv ati on s -.1 9 .10 -1. 88 -.0 5 .11 -.5 0 H1 1 Ca use -B ran d A llia nc e A ttit ud e ? Pu rch ase Int en tio ns for C au se- Br an d A llia nc e P rod uc t .59 .09 6.3 7* ** .51 .08 6.4 7* ** ** * p < .00 1 * p < .05 Ta ble 4. 9. Un sta nd ard ize d P ara me ter Es tim ate s f rom th e U nc on str ain ed M ult ipl e-G rou p S EM M od el in Fig ure 4. 6. 79 (?* = -.14, p = .015) and profit-based (?* = -.11, p = .061) motivations under high cause involvement conditions. Furthermore, recall that when the source of the message was the cause, message source was predicted to have a positive relationship with altruistic motivations and a negative relationship with profit-based motivations (H6). Under low involvement conditions, when the cause was the message source, consumers? perceptions of the brand?s motivations were more altruistic and less profit-based; however, under high involvement conditions, when the cause was the message source consumers perceived lower altruistic and profit-based brand motivations. Further Analyses Analyses Using the Median-Split Cause Involvement Variable Due to the unsuccessful experimental manipulation of cause involvement, further analysis was deemed necessary with the artificially created high and low cause involvement levels create using a median split of the cause involvement scores. Cause involvement levels were created within the data set by coding values lower than the median (Mdn = 5.43) as 0 (low involvement condition), and coding values equal to or higher than the median as 1 (high involvement condition). Single-Group SEM. A single-group SEM with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted to test the original model using the median-split cause involvement variable (see Figure 4.5). The fit indices for the model revealed inconsistent results. Although the chi-square test (?2 = 748.2, df = 112, p < .001) failed to support a good fit, and the incremental fit indices did not exceed .95 (CFI = .90, TLI =.87, IFI = .90, NFI = .89), the RMSEA (.088) suggested a moderate fit of the model. 80 Compared to the model with the manipulated cause involvement variable, regression coefficients for the model with the median-split cause involvement variable indicated that perceived altruistic brand motivations (?* = .26, p < .001) and profit-based brand motivations (?* = .27, p < .001) had less impact on cause-brand alliance attitude, and cause-brand alliance attitude had less impact on purchase intention (?* = .36, p < .001) (see Table 4.8). Furthermore, in the median-split cause involvement model, cause involvement had a direct effect on cause-brand alliance attitude (?* = .55, p < .001). The relationships between the other variables in the median-split cause involvement model were similar to those of the model with the manipulated cause involvement variable. Multiple-Group SEM. Multiple-group SEM with maximum likelihood estimation was then conducted using the median split cause involvement variable to determine if cause involvement moderates the relationship between 1) cause-brand fit and 2) message source on perceived brand motivations (see Figure 4.7). The Chi square difference test result (?2 = 6.96, df = 4, p = .138) failed to confirm a significant difference between the unconstrained and constrained models, failing to demonstrate a moderating effect for cause involvement. For the high involvement group, the effect of cause-brand fit on altruistic brand motivations (?* = .05, p = .437) was lower than for the low involvement group (?* = .16, p = .011) (see Table 4.10 for unstandardized paths coefficients). This finding contradicts those of the model with the manipulated cause involvement variable, in which the effect of cause-brand fit on altruistic brand motivations was greater under the high involvement condition than under the low condition. Consistent with the results of the manipulated cause 81 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .0001 Note. Standardized coefficients for the high cause involvement condition listed first. Those for the low cause involvement condition are in parentheses Note. Dashed lines indicate non-significant relationships at the p = .05 level Figure 4.7. Multiple-Group SEM Standardized Coefficients Using the Median-Split Cause Involvement Variable Perceived Altruistic Brand Motivations Perceived Profit- Based Brand Motivations Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude Purchase Intentions for Cause-Brand Alliance Product Cause-Brand Fit Message Source (Cause v. Brand) .05 (.16*) -.05 (-.01) -.11 (.03) -.11 (-.01) .29*** (.24***) .09 (.45***) .22*** (.19**) ?2 = 585.1, df = 194, p < .001 CFI = .91, IFI = .91, NFI = .88 RMSEA = .054 82 H igh C au se Lo w Ca us e Inv olv em en t In vo lve me nt Pa th Es t. S.E . T Es t. S. E. T Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d M oti va tio ns ? C au se- Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e .19 .04 4.4 3* ** .19 .06 3.5 2* ** Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d M oti va tio ns ? C au se- Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e .07 .05 1.4 1 .42 .07 6.0 2* ** Ca use -B ran d F it ? Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d Mo tiv ati on s .10 .13 .78 .32 .13 2.5 3* Ca use -B ran d F it ? Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d Mo tiv ati on s -.0 8 .10 -.7 9 -.0 2 .10 -.2 3 Me ssa ge So urc e ? Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d Mo tiv ati on s -.2 4 .13 -1. 90 .06 .13 .46 Me ssa ge So urc e ? Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d Mo tiv ati on s -.2 0 .11 -1. 87 .02 .11 .21 Ca use -B ran d A llia nc e A ttit ud e ? Pu rch ase In ten tio ns for C au se- Br an d A llia nc e P rod uc t .47 .13 3.7 0* ** .32 .10 3.0 2* * * p < . 05 * * p < .01 * ** p < . 00 1 T ab le 4.1 0. Un sta nd ard ize d P ara me ter Es tim ate s f rom th e U nc on str ain ed M ult ipl e-G rou p S EM M od el in Fig ure 4. 7 83 involvement variable, the effect of cause-brand fit on profit-based brand motivations with the median split variable was higher for the high involvement group (?* = -.05, p = .431) than for the low involvement group (?* = -.01, p = .822). Similar to the results of the model with the manipulated cause involvement variable, the effect of message source on altruistic brand motivations (?* = .03, p = .648) and profit-based brand motivations (?* = .01, p = .833) was lower for the low cause involvement group than the effect of message source on altruistic (?* = -.11, p =.058) and profit-based (?* = -.11, p = .062) motivations for the high cause involvement group. Cause-Brand Fit as a Latent Variable with Perceived Fit Indicators To further explore the relationships between fit and the other variables in the proposed model, cause-brand fit was entered as a latent variable with the cause-brand fit manipulation check items (i.e., perceived fit) rather than a manipulated variable and SEM was run, first with the manipulated cause involvement variable and then with the median split cause involvement variable (see Figure 4.8). For the model with the manipulated cause involvement variable, the fit indices revealed inconsistent results. The Chi square (?2 = 850.6, df = 201, p < .001) indicated that the data did not have a good fit with the model, yet the incremental fit indices were close to .95 (CFI = .94, TLI =.92, IFI = .94, NFI = .92), and the RMSEA (.066) suggested a good fit of the model. Compared to manipulated cause-brand fit, perceived cause-brand fit had a much stronger effect on altruistic brand motivations (?* = .72, p < .001). The manipulated cause-brand fit variable did not have a significant effect on profit-based motivations, yet perceived cause-brand fit had a significant effect on profit-based 84 *** p < .001 Note. SEM with median split cause involvement variable in parentheses Dashed lines indicate non-significant relationships at the p = .05 level Figure 4.8. Standardized Coefficients for the SEM model with Cause-Brand Fit as a Latent Variable Perceived Profit-Based Brand Motivations Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude Purchase Intentions for Cause-Brand Alliance Product .72*** .47*** -.06 Consumer Cause Involvement Message Source (Cause v. Brand) .33*** (.22***) .32*** (.27***) -.01 (.53***) -.04 .39*** (.37***) Cause-Brand Fit -.02 .03 Perceived Altruistic Brand Motivations Median Split Cause Involvement: ?2 = 850.6, df = 201, p < .001 CFI = .94, IFI = .94, TLI = .92 NFI = .92 RMSEA = .066 Manipulated Cause Involvement: ?2 = 1009.9, df = 201, p < .001 CFI = .92, IFI = .92, NFI = .91, TLI = .90 RMSEA = .074 85 motivations (?* = .47, p < .001). The strength and significance of the relationships among the other variables in the model were similar to those in the model with the manipulated fit (see Table 4.11). The Chi square test for the model with the median split cause involvement variable did not indicate a good fit (?2 = 1009.9, df = 201, p < .001), and although the fit indices did not quite reach .95 (CFI = .92, TLI =.90, IFI = .92, NFI = .91), the RMSEA (.074) indicated an acceptable fit of the model. Perceived cause-brand fit had a strong effect on both altruistic brand motivations (?* = .72, p < .001) and on profit-based motivations (?* = .47, p < .001). The relationships among the other factors in the present model were close to those in the model using the manipulated cause-brand fit variable (see Table 4.11). Although the regression coefficients for the effect of cause-brand fit on perceived brand motivations were similar for the model with the manipulated cause involvement variable and the model with the median split cause involvement variable, it is interesting to note that compared to the median split cause involvement model, the model with the manipulated cause involvement variable had fit indices that were closer to .95, suggesting a better fit of the data. The RMSEA for the model with the manipulated cause involvement variable was lower than that of the median split cause involvement model, further suggesting that the manipulated cause involvement model had a better fit of the data. Cause Involvement as a Latent Variable Structural equation modeling with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted with cause involvement as a latent variable to further examine the relationship between 86 Ma nip ula ted M ed ian Sp lit C au se Inv olv em en t C au se Inv olv em en t Pa th Es t. S.E . T Es t. S.E . t Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d M oti va tio ns ? C au se Br an d Al lia nc e A ttit ud e .29 .05 5.4 6* ** .18 .05 3.9 8* ** Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d M oti va tio ns ? C au se Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e .38 .05 6.9 8* ** .30 .05 6.3 4* ** Ca use -B ran d F it ? C au se- Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e .10 .06 1.6 3 .03 .05 .49 Ca use -B ran d F it ? Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d Mo tiv ati on s .84 .05 16 .66 ** * .84 .05 16 .65 ** * Ca use -B ran d F it ? Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d Mo tiv ati on s .40 .04 9.8 5* ** .41 .04 9.8 6* ** Me ssa ge So urc e ? C au se- Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e -.0 5 .07 -.7 7 -.0 5 .06 -.7 5 Me ssa ge So urc e ? Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d Mo tiv ati on s -.0 9 .08 -1. 21 -.0 9 .08 -1. 20 Me ssa ge So urc e ? Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d Mo tiv ati on s -.1 1 .07 -1. 61 -.1 1 .07 -1. 61 Ca use In vo lve me nt ? C au se- Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e -.0 1 .07 -.1 7 1.0 3 .07 14 .93 ** * Ca use - B ran d A llia nc e A ttit ud e ? Pu rch ase In ten tio ns for C au se- Br an d A llia nc e P rod uc t .55 .06 9.6 3* ** .55 .06 8.9 6* ** * ** p < . 00 1 T ab le 4.1 1. Un sta nd ard ize d P ara me ter Es tim ate s f or the SE M usi ng C au se- Br an d F it a s a La ten t V ari ab le in Fig ure 4. 8 87 attitude (see Figure 4.9). Although the Chi square test did not indicate a good fit of the model (?2 = 1105.6, df = 222, p < .001), and the fit indices did not reach .95 (CFI = .92, TLI =.90, IFI = .92), the RMSEA suggest an acceptable fit of the model (.073). Compared to the manipulated cause involvement variable (?* = -.02, p = .576) and the median split cause involvement variable (?* = .55, p < .001), cause involvement as a latent variable had a stronger impact on cause-brand alliance attitude (?* = .69, p < .001). Unstandardiazed path coefficients for the hypothesized relationships are presented in Table 4.12. The lack of a significant relationship between cause involvement and cause- brand alliance attitude suggests that this relationship may be mediated by brand motivations. Cause Involvement and Perceived Brand Motivations So, an additional SEM with maximum likelihood estimation analysis was run with additional paths from cause involvement to perceived altruistic and profit-based brand motivations in order to determine if the impact of cause involvement on cause-brand alliance attitude is mediated by brand motivations (see Figure 4.10). This time, the median-split groups were used for the cause involvement variable. The Chi square test did not indicate a prefect of the data (?2 = 523.8, df = 110, p < .001), although the incremental fit indices were close to reaching .95 (CFI = .94, IFI = .94, NFI = .92), and the RMSEA (.071) suggested a good fit of the model. Structure coefficients indicated that higher cause involvement induced both greater perceived altruistic brand motivations (?* = .47, p < .001) and greater profit-based motivations (?* = .38, p < .001). 88 ***p < .001 * p < .05 Note: Dashed lines indicate non-significant relationships at the p = .05 level Figure 4.9. Standardized Coefficients for the SEM Model with Cause Involvement as a Latent Variable Perceived Altruistic Brand Motivations Perceived Profit-Based Brand Motivations Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude Purchase Intentions for Cause-Brand Alliance Product .10* -.02 -.07 -.02 Cause-Brand Fit .17*** .25*** .69*** -.06 0.0 .37*** Message Source (Cause v. Brand) Consumer Cause Involvement ?2 = 1105.6, df = 222, p < .001 CFI = .92, IFI = .92, TLI = .90 RMSEA = .073 89 Pa th Es t. S.E . T Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d M oti va tio ns ? C au se Br an d Al lia nc e A ttit ud e .14 .03 5.1 3* ** Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d M oti va tio ns ? C au se Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e .27 .04 7.2 0* ** Ca use -B ran d F it ? C au se- Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e 0.0 .06 .01 Ca use -B ran d F it ? Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d Mo tiv ati on s .23 .10 2.4 2* Ca use -B ran d F it ? Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d Mo tiv ati on s -.0 3 .07 -.4 6 Me ssa ge So urc e ? C au se- Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e -.0 3 .06 -.5 6 Me ssa ge So urc e ? Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d Mo tiv ati on s -.1 4 .10 -1. 43 Me ssa ge So urc e ? Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d Mo tiv ati on s -.1 3 .07 1.7 0 Ca use In vo lve me nt ? C au se- Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e .54 .03 17 .19 ** * Ca use - B ran d A llia nc e A ttit ud e ? Pu rch ase In ten tio ns for C au se- Br an d A llia nc e P rod uc t .56 .06 9.0 1* ** * ** p < . 00 1 * p < . 05 T ab le 4.1 2. Un sta nd ard ize d P ara me ter Es tim ate s f or the SE M Mo de l w ith C au se Inv olv em en t a s a La ten t V ari ab le in Fig ure 4. 9 90 ***p < .001 ** p < .01 Note: Dashed lines indicate non-significant relationships at the p = .05 level Figure 4.10. Standardized Coefficients for SEM Model Testing the Effect of Cause Involvement on Perceived Brand Motivations Perceived Altruistic Brand Motivations Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude Purchase Intentions for Cause-Brand Alliance Product .10** -.02 -.05 -.02 Consumer Cause Involvement Cause-Brand Fit Message Source (Cause v. Brand) .23*** .24*** .47*** -.04 -.02 .39*** Perceived Profit-Based Brand Motivations .47*** .38*** ?2 = 523.8, df = 110, p < .001 CFI = .94, IFI = .94, NFI = .92 RMSEA = .071 91 Compared to the median-split cause involvement model without the additional paths from cause involvement to perceived brand motivations, the effect of cause involvement on cause-brand alliance attitude decreased slightly (?* = .47, p < .001) and the effects of altruistic (?* = .23, p < .001) and profit-based brand motivations (?* = .24, p < .001) on cause brand alliance attitude were slightly lower, indicating that perceived brand motivations partially mediate the effect of cause involvement on cause-brand alliance attitude (see Table 4.13 for path coefficients). 92 Pa th Es t. S.E . T Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d M oti va tio ns ? C au se Br an d Al lia nc e A ttit ud e .21 .03 6.0 6* ** Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d M oti va tio ns ? C au se Br an d Al lia nc e A ttit ud e .29 .04 6.5 8* ** Ca use -B ran d F it ? C au se- Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e -.0 4 .06 -.6 0 Ca use -B ran d F it ? Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d M oti va tio ns .23 .09 2.5 9* * Ca use -B ran d F it ? Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d Mo tiv ati on s -.0 4 .07 -.5 1 Me ssa ge So urc e ? C au se- Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e -.0 4 .06 -.6 7 Me ssa ge So urc e ? Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d M oti va tio ns -.1 0 .09 -1. 09 Me ssa ge So urc e ? Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d Mo tiv ati on s -.1 0 .07 -1. 42 Ca use In vo lve me nt ? C au se- Br an d A llia nc e A ttit ud e .99 .08 12 .24 ** * Ca use -B ran d A llia nc e A ttit ud e ? Pu rch ase In ten tio ns for Ca use -B ran d A llia nc e P rod uc t .55 .06 9.6 7* ** Ca use In vo lve me nt ? Pe rce ive d A ltru ist ic Br an d Mo tiv ati on s 1.1 0 .09 11 .65 ** * Ca use In vo lve me nt ? Pe rce ive d P rof it-B ase d B ran d Mo tiv ati on s .67 .08 8.6 1* ** * ** p < . 00 1 * * p < .01 T ab le 4.1 3. Un sta nd ard ize d P ara me ter Es tim ate s f or the SE M Mo de l T est ing th e E ffe ct of C au se Inv olv em en t o n P erc eiv ed B ran d M oti va tio ns in Fig ure 4. 10 93 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter discusses findings related to the casual and structural relationships among the factors that influence consumer response to cause-brand alliance attitude in light of the previous literature and theoretical framework on which the present study was based. The theoretical and managerial implications of the findings and the limitations of this study are also explained, followed by suggestions for future research. Discussion Perceived Brand Motivations and Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude When consumers perceive that the brand had more altruistic motivations for participating in the cause-brand alliance, they have more favorable attitudes toward the alliance. However, contrary to the hypothesis, profit-based brand motivations also have a positive (although slightly weaker) relationship with cause-brand alliance attitude. These findings indicate that profit-based and altruistic motives are not opposite view points and provide support for the notion that consumers willingly acknowledge that brands have both altruistic and profit-based intentions for participating in marketing activities such as cause-brand alliances. Although a positive relationship between profit-based brand motivations and cause-brand alliance attitude was not predicted, it is in line with findings from a previous study (Harben and Kwon, working paper). In a study on consumers? responses to cause- 94 brand alliances, Harben and Kwon used survey research to examine the relationships between prior brand attitude, perceived brand motivations, cause-brand alliance attitude, and post brand attitude. In the study, participants read a hypothetical news article involving a cause-brand alliance between existing brands and causes and then their perceptions of brand motivations, cause-brand alliance attitude, and post brand attitude were measured. Results indicated that perceptions of both altruistic and profit-based brand motivations had a positive influence on cause-brand alliance attitude. No previously published study has demonstrated a positive relationship between profit-based brand motivations and cause-brand alliance attitude, although in a study testing the moderating effect of skepticism toward the company?s motivation for joining in an alliance on the relationship between cause-brand fit and purchase intention, Gupta and Pirsch (2006) failed to find a significant interaction between cause-brand fit and consumer skepticism of the brand?s motivations for participating in the alliance. Consumers who had a higher level of skepticism did not differ in their purchase intention from consumers who had a lower level of skepticism. Gupta and Pirsch (2006) argue that consumers realize companies are not participating in cause-brand alliances for the sole purpose of helping the cause and that companies must make a profit. Gupta and Pirsch state that consumers? decision to purchase products related to cause-brand alliances may not be affected by the company?s intentions, but rather they purchase such products to support a worthy cause. 95 Cause-Brand Fit When cause-brand fit is high, consumers perceive more altruistic brand motivations supporting previous findings (Rifon, Choi, Trimble, & Li, 2004; Ellen, Webb, & Mohr, 2006), yet cause-brand fit does not affect consumers? perceptions of profit-based motivations. This finding indicates that the degree of fit consumers see between the cause and the brand influences how altruistic they perceive the brand to be in joining the cause-brand alliance, but not how profit motivated the brand may be. In other words, when consumers perceive a low cause-brand fit, they are less likely to perceive that the brand had altruistic motivations for joining the cause-brand alliance, but they are not more likely to perceive that the brand had profit-based brand motivations in joining the alliance. This finding also indicates that profit-based and altruistic motives are not directly opposing view points and again supports the idea that consumers understand that brands have profit-based motivations for participating in cause-brand alliances. Although the cause-brand fit manipulation did not influence profit-based motivations as hypothesized in this study, during further analysis, consumers? subjective perceptions of cause-brand fit (i.e. cause-brand fit as a latent variable) did impact profit- based brand motivations. This finding indicates that cause-brand fit may not have been manipulated strongly enough in the main experiment to affect profit-based brand motivations, warranting further research with a greater difference between the high and low cause-brand fit conditions. The result also indicates that consumers may perceive more motivations overall, both altruistic and profit-based, with a high cause-brand fit than with a low cause-brand fit. 96 The fact that cause-brand fit does not directly affect consumers? attitude toward the cause-brand alliance (neither as a manipulated nor a latent variable) contradicts previous findings (Lafferty, Goldsmith, & Hult, 2004; Simmons, Becker, & Olsen, 2006). The lack of a significant direct relationship between cause-brand fit and cause-brand alliance attitude, along with the presence of a positive relationship between altruistic brand motivations and cause-brand alliance attitude indicates that the relationship between cause-brand fit and cause-brand alliance attitude is mediated by perceived altruistic brand motivations. This finding underlines the importance of securing a well- fitting cause to partner with the brand. Partnering a low-fitting cause with a brand may not directly harm attitude toward the cause-brand alliance, but it may make consumers perceive less altruistic brand motivations, which in turn could lead to a less favorable cause-brand alliance attitude and subsequent purchase intentions for the cause-brand alliance product. Message Source The source of the message about the cause-brand alliance does not influence perceptions of brand motivations. Although the relationship between message source and profit-based motivations did not reach the established significance level in the present study, the relationship was marginally significant suggesting that when the brand is the message source consumers may perceive more profit-based motivations. However, the message source manipulation was not strong enough in this study to make the relationship significant. A result that when the brand is the source of the message about the cause-brand alliance consumers have greater perceptions of profit-based motivations 97 would support the idea that when consumers encounter a message from a brand, the brand?s objective of assisting its parent company in selling their goods is more salient and therefore profit-based motivations are the perceived as the reason for participating in the cause-brand alliance (c.f. Kelley & Michela, 1980). Since profit-based motivations did not negatively affect cause-brand attitudes, it can be argued that consumers? attitudes toward the cause-brand alliance are not influenced by whether the message source is the cause or the brand. The lack of a significant direct relationship between message source and cause- brand alliance attitude found in this study confirms the idea that as consumers form their attitudes toward cause-brand alliances, they are not influenced by the message source of the information about the alliance. Lack of a significant relationship between message source and consumer cause-brand alliance attitude is inconsistent with previous empirical findings (Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006) and contradicts Weiner, Laforge, and Goolsby?s (1990) concept that consumers are influenced by how self-interested they perceive the information source to be as they form their attitudes toward an individual or object (i.e., the cause-brand alliance). A number of factors in the present study?s design may have resulted in the message source manipulation not being strong enough to reveal a relationship between message source and cause-brand alliance attitude, warranting further research on this topic. Although attempts were made to clearly indicate to the participants who the source of the message was throughout the press release by using words such as ?We, at The North Face (Old Navy)?, participants still may not have realized the source of the 98 message. Use of a graphic or logo may have better indicated the message source. In addition, question at the end of the survey about the source of the message allowed participants to select their answer from two choices, either the cause or the brand. Participants could have easily guessed the answer to this question and taken the entire survey not knowing the source of the message. Cause Involvement The analysis with the manipulated cause involvement variable failed to show that cause involvement has an effect on cause-brand alliance attitude. However, during further analysis when the median split cause involvement variable was used in the model, greater cause involvement resulted in more favorable cause-brand alliance attitude. Furthermore, when cause involvement was a latent variable in the model, cause brand alliance attitude was even more strongly affected by cause involvement. These findings provide support for the notion that how relevant consumers perceive that the cause is to their lives influences their cause-brand alliance attitude (Grau & Folse, 2007; Gupta & Pirsch, 2006; Trimble & Rifon, 2006). Therefore, to create a cause-brand alliance that consumers view favorably, brand marketers will want to partner their brand with a cause that is relevant to their target consumers. The reason that there was no significant relationship between cause involvement and cause-brand alliance attitude in the main experiment may have been because cause involvement was not successfully manipulated, warranting further research with more successful manipulation of cause involvement conditions. 99 Cause Involvement and Perceived Brand Motivations Additional analysis of the data shows that cause involvement has a positive effect on both altruistic and profit-based motivations. This finding is consistent with previous literature that consumers who are more involved with a cause have more thoughts about the alliance (Hajjat, 2003). Additionally, the finding that altruistic brand motivations mediate the effect of cause involvement on cause-brand alliance attitude provides support for the notion that consumers who are more involved with the cause are likely to perceive that the brand had more altruistic motives for joining with the cause. The finding that perceived profit-based motivations also mediate the effect of cause involvement on cause-brand alliance attitude provides evidence for the idea that even consumers who are highly involved with the cause realize that the brands join with causes as a way to sell products and do not allow profit-based motivations to negatively impact their attitude toward the cause-brand alliance. Moderating Effects of Cause-Involvement Results failed to show that cause involvement moderates the effects of cause- brand fit or message source on perceived brand motivations in this study. These findings are inconsistent with the elaboration likelihood model (Petty and Cacioppo, 1996), which states that those consumers who are more involved with the cause would be more influenced by central cues of information (e.g. cause-brand fit), while consumers who are less involved would be more influenced by peripheral cues such as message source. The results of this study may have failed to reveal a moderating effect of cause involvement 100 because the cause involvement manipulation was not successful, warranting further studies with successful cause involvement manipulation. Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude and Purchase Intention for Cause-Brand Alliance Products Although brand marketers may have a number of objectives for participating in a cause-brand alliance (e.g. enhanced brand image, increasing customer base), the ultimate goal is to increase sales (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). The present study examined the relationships between cause involvement, cause-brand fit, perceived brand motivations, and message source and the influence that these factors have on cause-brand alliance attitude and subsequent purchase intentions for the cause-brand alliance product to help marketers create cause-brand alliances that consumers view favorably and so that they want to purchase the cause-brand alliance product. Consumers who had a more favorable attitude toward the cause-brand alliance had higher intentions to purchase the product associated with the alliance. This finding supports previous literature that consumers? purchase intentions increase when a brand provides assistance for a cause (Mohr & Webb, 2005) and underscores the importance of marketers knowing how to create cause-brand alliances that consumers? favorably view in order to meet their ultimate goal of increasing the brand?s sales. This finding also supports the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) that when individuals favorably view an object, they will intend to perform behaviors related to that object. Results from the present study show that one way to create a favorably viewed cause-brand alliance is by partnering the brand with a cause that consumers feel is 101 important to their lives. Furthermore, partnering the brand with a well-fitting cause will increase consumers? perceptions of altruistic brand motivations, which will enhance their attitude toward the cause-brand alliance and subsequent purchase intentions for the cause-brand alliance product. One interesting finding from this study is that consumers? cause-brand alliance attitudes and purchase intentions are not diminished if they perceive that the brand has profit-based motivations for participating in the alliance; consumers acknowledge that brands have altruistic and profit-based motivations for participating in cause-brand alliances. Another finding worth noting is that contrary to the prediction in the present study, message source does not influence cause-brand alliance attitude, and therefore will not affect consumers? intentions to purchase the cause-brand alliance product. Implications Theoretical Implications The present study was supported by a number of theories that explain how consumers react to new information and/or new experiences. Applying these concepts to consumers? responses to cause-brand alliances, the present study makes a theoretical contribution to the current knowledge by examining the influence of consumer involvement with the cause, cause-brand fit, message source, and perceived brand motivations on cause-brand alliance attitude and purchase intentions for the cause-brand alliance product in a conceptual model. In addition, investigating the causal and structural relationships among these factors in a conceptual model gives a clearer understanding of the way in which they 102 influence consumer responses to a cause-brand alliance. Previous literature has examined cause-involvement, cause-brand fit, message source, and perceived brand motivations through direct relationships with cause-brand alliance attitude and purchase intentions, yet only the current model uses an integrated framework to test for both direct and indirect relationships among the variables in the model. For example, the present study uses attribution theory to explain how perceived brand motivations influence cause-brand alliance attitudes. The more altruistic consumers perceive the brand?s motivations for engaging in the alliance, the more favorably they view the alliance. Supported by previous findings, this study applies schema congruity theory to explain how cause-brand fit positively influences cause-brand alliance attitude (Lafferty, Goldsmith, & Hult, 2004; Simmons, Becker, & Olsen, 2006) and supported by attribution theory, this study builds on these previous findings to suggest that the effect of cause-brand fit on cause-brand alliance attitude occurs through consumers? perceived altruistic brand motivations. The present study provides further support for previous findings that cause involvement affects consumers? attitude toward the cause-brand alliance (Gupta & Pirsch, 2004; Trimble & Rifon, 2006; Grau & Folse). Although perceived brand motivations positively influence purchase intention (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006), the present study uses attribution theory to explain that this relationship occurs through cause-brand alliance attitude. Applying the elaboration likelihood model, the findings from this study further researchers? understanding of how a consumer?s level of involvement with the cause affects the way information about the 103 alliance, such as message source, influences purchase intentions through brand motivations and cause-brand alliance attitude. The proposed model differs from other models in it uses an integrated network of theories to understand how the factors in the model (cause-brand fit, message source, cause involvement, perceived brand motivations) influence cause-brand alliance attitude, which influences consumers? intentions to purchase the product association with the cause-brand alliance. The current study extends previous work in that no other published model has examined purchase intentions as the final dependent variable, nor has a study investigated the relationship between cause-brand alliance attitude and purchase intentions. The present study uses the theory of reasoned action to suggest that a consumer?s purchase intention is positively influenced by their attitude toward the cause- brand alliance. Managerial Implications Results from this study may help marketers create more successful cause-brand alliance campaigns by yielding a better understanding of how factors of cause-brand alliances, such as message source, cause-brand fit, cause involvement, and perceived motivations for the alliance influence consumers? cause-brand alliance attitudes and their intentions to purchase a product in a cause-brand alliance. For example, study results suggest that both altruistic and profit-based brand motivations positively influence cause- brand alliance attitude, although altruistic brand motivations have a slightly greater impact on alliance attitude. Therefore, brand managers will want to create conditions in which consumers perceive that the brand has altruistic brand motivations for participating 104 in the alliance, though they must realize that consumers may still perceive profit-based motivations because they understand that a cause-brand alliance is a marketing activity. One way to achieve more perceived altruistic brand motivations is by ensuring a good fit between the cause and the brand. This finding provides support for previous literature (Ellen, Webb, & Mohr, 2006; Rifon, Choi, Trimble, & Li, 2004) that when consumers believed that the cause and the brand fit together, they were more likely to perceive that the brand was participating in the alliance because it wanted to help the cause. On the other hand, given that message source does not appear to influence consumers? attitudes toward the cause-brand alliance, marketers need not be overly concerned about using either the brand or the cause as the source of the message about the cause-brand alliance. In addition, consumers vary in their involvement with causes. The results from this study give marketers a clearer understanding of the way that level of involvement affects cause-brand alliance attitude and processing of cause-brand alliance information. Brand marketers will want to partner their brand with a cause that consumers feel is relevant to their lives as consumers who are more involved with the cause will view the cause-brand alliance more favorably. Brand managers will need to emphasize different aspects of the information regarding a cause-brand alliance for different audiences. Highly involved consumers will be more likely to focus on the cause-brand fit, and may be more likely to favorably view the alliance if the cause-brand fit is high through their perception of altruistic brand motivations. 105 Although participating in a cause-brand alliance has been found to increase favorable attitude toward the cause-brand alliance and toward the brand (Lafferty, Goldsmith, & Hult, 2004; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006), companies are most interested in persuading the consumer to purchase products associated with the alliance (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). The present study aids marketers in achieving their ultimate goal of increasing sales by showing that consumers who favorably view the cause-brand alliance have an increased intention of purchasing the product associated with the alliance. Furthermore, the study demonstrates how various factors of the alliance affect cause-brand alliance attitude. For example, both perceived altruistic and profit- based motivations lead to a more favorable cause-brand alliance attitudes, and individual factors of the alliance influence perceived motivations in different ways; cause-brand fit influences altruistic perceived brand motivations, and based on additional analyses, cause involvement has an impact on both types of motivations. Limitations Although every effort was made to ensure the validity of the results from this study, several limitations exist that should be accounted for when interpreting these findings. Limitations in the areas of sampling method and experimental design and suggestions for ways to overcome these limitations in further research will be discussed here. Sampling Method The sample for this study was college students. Although sampling only one generation of consumers limits the ability to generalize findings, the use of a student 106 sample in this study is justified because the goal of this experimental research is not as concerned with describing the population as testing the theoretical relationships between cause involvement, message source, cause-brand fit, and perceived brand motivations and the effect that these factors have on cause-brand alliance attitude and cause-brand alliance product purchase intention. In addition, the age of the student sample is an appealing market segment for brand managers (Cui, Trent, Sullivan, & Matiru, 2003). An effort was made to obtain a national sample of college students by using a market research company. Although the company offered participants compensation for their time (points, or virtual currency that was appropriate for their social networking website) to increase participation in the study, it may have negatively impacted results. A number of cases had to be removed from the data set because of invalid data (e.g., some respondents simply answered all of the same number for every question in the questionnaire; others provided a nonsense answer to the question, ?What is your major??). This suggests that some respondents may have wanted to simply complete the survey in order to receive their compensation and may not have provided sincere responses to the questions. Although the above mentioned two types of careless answering were easily detected and removed, it is impossible to determine other cases where students were responding in a haphazard manner. One limitation for this study is that pretest 1 and pretest 2 samples consist of students from only Auburn University, while the main experiment sample was students from colleges and universities all over the United States. Future studies should invite students from various colleges and universities around the country to participate in all 107 phases of the study. A pretest sample that included consumers from different regions of the U.S. may have may have given a better indication of the views of students around the country and allowed for stronger experimental manipulations of the independent variables in the main experiment. For example, the two pretests indicated that cause involvement was manipulated with samples of Auburn University students, yet the manipulation was not successful in the main experiment. Although the reasons are not clear, students from around the country felt a greater involvement with conditions in South Africa than students at Auburn University. Experimental Design Although two pretests were administered to help ensure that the methodology for the main experiment would successfully manipulate the independent variables, results indicate that the manipulation for cause involvement was not successful and the manipulation of cause-brand fit and message source could have been stronger. The type of cause used in the study may have impacted the cause involvement manipulation. Environmental issues are widely discussed on college campuses and in the media, invoking a greater sense of involvement for these causes. Furthermore, the way in which cause involvement was manipulated (i.e., affecting the local area in the near future v. affecting an area farther away and later in time) may have reduced the difference in the level of involvement evoked in the high and low cause involvement conditions. The notion that society is global is widely studied in college courses, seen in the media, and in popular books such as Thomas Friedman?s The World is Flat, and gives consumers a sense that even events that occur far away from them have an impact on their lives. On 108 the other hand, the prevalence of concern for environmental issues may have compelled participants to exaggerate their level of concern in the low involvement condition, resulting in social desirability bias in participant?s responses. The large number of respondents who had to be removed from the data set for not correctly answering the messages source question demonstrates that the methodology concerning the manipulation of message source could be improved by 1) making it clearer to participants who the source of the message is, and 2) improving the manipulation check. One way to make the source of the message more apparent is by using a graphic such as a logo to represent the cause or the brand. Altering the format of the message according to the source may also help the participant realize the source of the message. For example, consumers are accustomed to learning about a brand?s marketing activities through advertisements, while consumers often learn about the activities of a cause through newsletters. Furthermore, the format and location of the message source manipulation check question should be adjusted. The question, ?Who is the source of the message?? should be open-ended. In the present study, offering participants two answer choices allowed a fifty percent chance that the person could have gotten the answer correct by simply guessing. The manipulation check question should be moved from the end of the questionnaire to directly after the cause-brand alliance message. For participants who did not realize the source of the message while reading the press release at first, having to answer the question could allow the participant to refer back to the press release, thus 109 reinforcing the message source in participants? minds as they go on to answer the other questions in the questionnaire. Although the difference between the high and low conditions for cause-brand fit was statistically significantly different, a cause-brand fit manipulation with a larger difference between the two conditions could have revealed more information about how cause-brand fit influences consumer response to cause-brand alliances. A way to achieve a greater cause-brand fit manipulation would be to include more than one cause-brand alliance scenario in the second pretest, allowing the researcher to choose the alliance with the greatest difference between the high and low cause-brand fit conditions for the main experiment. The use of only one type of cause and one type of product limits the ability to generalize the findings to other cause-brand alliances. Future research should use multiple causes (e.g., disease, poverty, etc.) and a variety of types of products (e.g. footwear, portable music devices, cell phones, etc.) reduce any pre-existing bias that participants may have about the particular cause used for the study and to more clearly understand the relationships in the study. In addition, this study only measured consumers? intention to purchase items associated with the cause-brand alliance rather than their actual purchases. To measure actual purchases, future studies could offer participants an allotment of money to go an online website and actually purchase items that they may desire. As Barone, Miyazaki, and Taylor (2000) point out in their study, posting a news article about the cause-brand alliance and then asking the participants about their purchase intentions may produce a 110 biased result. In a real-life situation, consumers may not be faced with a purchase decision concerning the product in the cause-brand alliance until well-after they have heard the news about the cause-brand alliance, making this information less salient than is was in the questionnaire. Two limitations in the experimental design that prevented a better understanding of the relationships between the variables in the study are the lack of an open-ended question and the lack of a brand attitude measure in the questionnaire. An open-ended question asking participants to list any thoughts that they had about the content of the press release could have helped explain the unexpected findings in the study and could have given greater insight into other factors that influence consumers? response to cause- brand alliances, yet are not included in the present study. Brand attitude is a confounding variable in this study because consumers? attitude toward the brand prior to encountering the cause-brand alliance influences their attitude toward the cause-brand alliance (Lafferty, Goldsmith, & Hult, 2004). Measuring consumers? brand attitude before and after encountering the cause-brand alliance in this study would have allowed the researchers to control for this confounding variable. Recommendations for Future Research The results of the present study provide insight into future directions for cause- brand alliance research. Future studies should provide greater insight into the factors that influence consumer response to cause-brand alliances by further investigating the factors that influence cause-brand alliance attitude and purchase intention for the cause-brand 111 alliance product, including cause-brand fit, message source, cause involvement, and perceived brand motivations. Future research should investigate the effects of the type of fit (image-based or functional) that is created between the cause and the brand on consumer response to cause-brand alliances. Although the present study used imaged-based cause-brand fit only, future experimental research should include both an image-based and a functional fit cause-brand alliance to compare how each type of fit influences consumers? responses to the cause-brand alliances. The finding that cause-brand fit influences altruistic but not profit-based perceived brand motivations should be further investigated in light of the explanation that consumers know that brands have profit-based motivations, and therefore cause-brand fit does not affect this type of motivation, yet cause-brand fit affects altruistic perceived brand motivations because consumers are not expecting the brand to be motivated to help a cause. This study investigated the influence of the message source as the cause or the brand on consumers? responses to cause-brand alliances. Future research should examine the finding that the brand as the message source results in a more favorable cause-brand alliance attitude through perceived profit-based brand motivations, and the notion that this is because consumers are accustomed to learning about marketing activities from brands and therefore the brand gives a credibility to the cause-brand alliance. Further studies should investigate the influence of a third party, such as a celebrity or a retail store as the message source on consumers? response to the alliance and the influence that attitude toward this third party would have on attitude toward the alliance. The type of 112 medium through which consumers learn about the cause-brand alliance may influence their response to the cause-brand alliance. There are a variety of ways to reach consumers, including brand and cause websites, print, television, and internet advertisements, and social networking sites. The present study revealed that perceived altruistic and profit-based motivations both positively impacted cause-brand alliance attitude, demonstrating that altruistic and profit-based motivations are not viewed as opposite motivations by consumers, but consumers can perceive both motivations about a cause-brand alliance at the same time. Further research should investigate the notion that profit-based motivations positively impact cause-brand alliance attitude because consumers realize that brands participate in alliances as a marketing activity, yet perceived altruistic brand motivations have a greater effect on cause-brand alliance attitude because altruistic motivations are expected. Future empirical studies should explore other possible brand motivations that consumers may perceive about a cause-brand alliance. Including an open ended question asking participants about their thoughts may shed some light on the motivations that consumer?s perceive about a cause-brand alliance. In addition, future studies should investigate the effect that cause involvement has cause-brand alliance attitude through its effect on perceived altruistic and profit-based brand motivations. Although other factors of a cause-brand alliance have been addressed, (e.g. cause-brand fit, message source, type of donation, etc.), there is a lack of research on the effects of cause involvement on consumer response to cause-brand alliances. 113 The present study investigated consumers? intentions to purchase the product associated with the cause-brand alliance. Future studies should allot participants money to actually purchase the product associated with the alliance or other items not associated with the alliance to measure purchasing behavior. 114 REFERENCES Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 27- 41. Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). An examination of the validity of two models of attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 375-381. Bagozzi, R. P., & Burnkrant, R. B. (1981). Attitude measurement and behavior change: A reconsideration of attitude organization and its relationship to behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 6(1), 295-302. Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (1989). Rethinking the concept of user involvement. MIS Quarterly, 13(1), 53-63. 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. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge University Press. Becker-Olsen, K. L., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of sponsor fit on brand equity: The case of nonprofit service providers. Journal of Service Research, 9(1), 73-83. Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59, 46-53. 115 Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P.H., & Kozinets, R. V. (1999). Consumer persuasion through cause-related advertising. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 491-497. Bridges, S., Keller, K. L., & Sood, S. (2000). Communication strategies for brand extensions: Enhancing perceived fit by establishing explanatory links. Journal of Advertising, 29(4), 1-11. Broniarczyk, S. M., & Alba, J. W. (1994). The importance of the brand in brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 214-228. Bulik, B. S. (2007, October 8). Apple, Facebook tops for college students. Advertising Age, 78(40), 12. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 97-109. Celsi, R., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 210-224. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-766. Chaney, I., & Dolli, N. (2001). Cause related marketing in New Zealand. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 6(2), 156-163. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 116 Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cone, Inc. (2004). Cone corporate citizenship study. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.coneinc.com/content1086. Cone, Inc. (2008). Cone cause evolution study. Retrieved May 8, 2009, from http://www.coneinc.com/content1090. Cornwell, T. B., & Maignan, I. (1998). An International Review of Sponsorship Research. Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 1-21. Cui, Y., Trent E. S., Sullivan, P. M., and Matiru, G. N. (2003). Cause-Related marketing: How Generation Y responds. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(6/7), 310-20. Creyer, E. H., & Ross, W. T. (1997). The influence of firm behavior on purchase intentions: Do consumers really care about business ethics? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(6), 419-432. Davidson, J. (1997, May). Cancer sells. WorkingWoman, 22, 36-40. Dean, D. H. (2003). Consumer perception of corporate donations. Journal of Advertising, 32(4), 91-102. Deutsch, M., & Krauss, R. M. (1965). Theories in social psychology. New York: Basic Books. Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers? product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 307-319. 117 Drumwright, M. E. (1996). Company advertising with a social dimension: The role of noneconomic criteria. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 71- 87. Eagley, A. H., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal influences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 424-435. Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2000) Charitable organizations and the retailer: Do they mix? Journal of Retailing, 76(3), 393-406. 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. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory & research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Goranson, R. E., & Berkowitz, L. (1966). Reciprocity and responsibility reactions to prior help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(2), 227-232. Grau, S. L., & Folse, J. A. G. (2007). Cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 19-33. Gupta, S., & Pirsch, J. (2006). The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(6), 314-326. Gwinner, K. (1997). A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship. International Marketing Review, 14(3), 145- 158. 118 Hajjat, M. (2003). Effects of cuase-related marketing on attitudes and purchase intentions; The moderating role of cause involvement and donation size. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 11(1), 93-109. Haley, E. (1996). Exploring the construct of organization as source: Consumers? understandings of Organizational Sponsorship of Advocacy Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 25(2), 19- 35. Hall, C. (2007, April 5). Brand power; the top 12 most searched for apparel brands online in February, Women?s Wear Daily, p.12. Hamlin, R. P., & Wilson, T. (2004). The impact of cause branding on consumer reactions to products: Does product/cause ?fit? really matter? Journal of Marketing Management, 20, 663-681. Harben, B., & Kwon, W.-S. (2009). Antecedents of consumers? post brand attitude upon exposure to a cause-brand alliance. Unpublished manuscript. Hastie, R. (1984). Causes and effects of causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 44-56. Heider, F. (1941). Social perception and phenomenal causality, Psychology Review, 51, 358-374. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2003). The marketing advantages of strong brands. Brand Management, 10(6), 421-445. 119 Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635-650. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. Jagre, E., Watson, J. J., & Watson, J. G. (2001). Sponsorship and congruity theory: A theoretical framework for explaining consumer attitude and recall of event sponsorship. Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 439-445. James, D. O. (2006). Extension to alliance: Aaker and Keller?s model revisited. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 15(1), p.15-22. John, O. P., & Benet-Mart?nez, V. (2000). Measurement: Reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.) Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 339-369). Cambridge: University Press. Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 2. (219-266). New York: Academic Press. Josephson, N. (1984). American Express raises corporate giving to marketing art. Advertising Age, 55(4), 10-11. Kamins, M. A., & Gupta, K. (1994). Congruence between spokesperson and product type: a matchup hypothesis perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 11(6), 569- 586. 120 Kang, Y.-S., & Herr, P. M. (2006) Beauty and the beholder: Toward an integrated model of communication source effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 123-130. Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attribution in social interaction. New York: General Learning Press. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107-128. Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457-501. Lafferty, B. A. (2007). The relevance of fit in a cause-brand alliance when consumers evaluate corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 60, 447-453. 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(7), 509-531. Lau, R. R., & Russell, D. (1980). Attributions in the sports pages: A field test of some current hypotheses in attributional research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), p.29-38. Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis, (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In M. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and Cognition: The Seventeenth Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 3-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 121 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. Mitchell, A. A., & Olsen, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 318- 332. 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. Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45-72. Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility initiatives: Examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63-74. Nowak, L., Thach, L., & Olsen, J. E. (2006) Wowing the Millennials: Creating brand equity in the wine industry. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(4), 316-323. O? Donnell, J. (2006, October 11). Gen Y sits on top of consumer food chain; they?re savvy shoppers with money and influence. USA Today, p. 3B Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson. R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 185-193. 122 Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1915-1926. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: Application to advertising. In L. Percy & A. Woodside (Eds.) Advertising and consumer psychology. (pp. 3-23). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847-855. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146. 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, 635-640. Pyszcznski, T. A., & Greenberg, J. (1981). Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instigation of attributional processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(1), 31-38. Rifon, N. J. Choi, S. M., Trimble, C. S., & Li, H. (2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 29-42. 123 Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ross J. K., III, Patterson, L. T., & Stutts, M. A. (1992). Consumer perceptions of organizations that use cause-related marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(1), 93-97. Ross J. K., III, Stutts, M. A., & Patterson, L. T. (1990). Tactical considerations for the effective use of cause-related marketing. Journal of Applied Business Research, 7(2), 58-64. Rothschild, M. L. (1984). Perspectives on involvement: Current problems and future directions. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 216-217. Schuhwerk, M. E., & Lefkoff-Hagius, R. (1995). Green or non-green? Does type of appeal matter when advertising a green product? Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 45-55. Shaw, M. E., & Costano, P. R. (1970). Theories of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Sherif, M., & Cantril, H. (1947). The psychology of ego-involvement. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgement. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 124 Simmons, C. J., & Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70, 154-169. Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30- 42. Smith, S. M., & Alcorn, D. S. (1991). Cause marketing: A new direction in the marketing of corporate responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 8(3), 19-35. Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring Attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53-66. Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed. ). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Taylor, S. E., & Crocker, J. (1978). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium Vol. 1. (pp. 89-134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Thibaut, J. W., & Riecken, H. W. (1955). Some determinants and consequences of the perception of social causality. Journal of Personality, 24, 113-133. 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(1), 29-47. 125 Varadarajan, P. R. & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58- 74. Vaughn, R. (1980). How advertising works: A planning model. Journal of Advertising Research, 20(5), 27-34. 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 & Marketing, 17(2), 226-238. Weiner, B. (2000). Attributional thoughts about consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 382-387. Weiner, J. L., LaForge, R. W., & Goolsby, J. R. (1990). Personal communication in marketing: An examination of self-interest contingency relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(2), 227- 231. Wong, P. T. P., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask ?why? questions, and the heuristics of attributional search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 650-663. Yalch, R. F., & Elmore-Yalch, R. (1984). The effect of numbers on the route to persuasion, Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 522-527. Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341-352. Zimbardo, P. (1960). Involvement and communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion conformity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 60, 86-94. 126 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE (PRETEST 1) 127 Section 1 Directions: We are interested in how often you purchase various products. For each of the following product categories listed, please indicate how often you purchase products that fall into that category. 1. How often do you purchase a cell phone? More than once a month Once a month Once every 3-6 months Once a year Once every 2 years Once every 2.5-3 years Once every 3.5-5 years Once every 5+ years 2. How often do you purchase footwear? More than once a month Once a month Once every 3-6 months Once a year Once every 2 years Once every 2.5-3 years Once every 3.5-5 years Once every 5+ years 3. How often do you purchase portable music devices? More than once a month Once a month Once every 3-6 months Once a year Once every 2 years Once every 2.5-3 years Once every 3.5-5 years Once every 5+ years 128 4. How often do you purchase outdoor apparel (jackets, coats, etc.)? More than once a month Once a month Once every 3-6 months Once a year Once every 2 years Once every 2.5-3 years Once every 3.5-5 years Once every 5+ years 5. How often do you purchase general apparel (pants, shirts, etc. excluding outdoor apparel)? More than once a month Once a month Once every 3-6 months Once a year Once every 2 years Once every 2.5-3 years Once every 3.5-5 years Once every 5+ years 129 Section 2 Directions: This section addresses your familiarity with a number of brands. In the table below, please indicate how familiar you are with each brand. Not Somewhat Very Brand Familiar Familiar Familiar Blackberry o o o o o o o Verizon o o o o o o o Marmot o o o o o o o Nike o o o o o o o Old Navy o o o o o o o Vineyard Vines o o o o o o o Apple iPhone o o o o o o o Columbia Sportswear o o o o o o o SouthPort o o o o o o o Apple iPod o o o o o o o Stride o o o o o o o Adidas o o o o o o o Microsoft Zune o o o o o o o The North Face o o o o o o o Rainbow o o o o o o o Reed Sterling o o o o o o o Brooks Brothers o o o o o o o Sony o o o o o o o 130 Section 3 Directions: We are interested in your evaluation of the following brands. Please indicate your agreement with each word when used to describe the brand. 1. To me, Verizon is? Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree Appealing o o o o o o o Good o o o o o o o Pleasant o o o o o o o Unfavorable o o o o o o o Likeable o o o o o o o 2. To me, Columbia is? Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree Appealing o o o o o o o Good o o o o o o o Pleasant o o o o o o o Unfavorable o o o o o o o Likeable o o o o o o o 3. To me, Apple iPod is? Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree Appealing o o o o o o o Good o o o o o o o Pleasant o o o o o o o Unfavorable o o o o o o o Likeable o o o o o o o 131 4. To me, Adidas is? Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree Appealing o o o o o o o Good o o o o o o o Pleasant o o o o o o o Unfavorable o o o o o o o Likeable o o o o o o o 5. To me, Vineyard Vines is? Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree Appealing o o o o o o o Good o o o o o o o Pleasant o o o o o o o Unfavorable o o o o o o o Likeable o o o o o o o 6. To me, Apple iPhone is? Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree Appealing o o o o o o o Good o o o o o o o Pleasant o o o o o o o Unfavorable o o o o o o o Likeable o o o o o o o 132 Section 3 (continued) 7. To me, The North Face is? Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree Appealing o o o o o o o Good o o o o o o o Pleasant o o o o o o o Unfavorable o o o o o o o Likeable o o o o o o o 8. To me, Microsoft Zune is? Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree Appealing o o o o o o o Good o o o o o o o Pleasant o o o o o o o Unfavorable o o o o o o o Likeable o o o o o o o 9. me, Nike is? Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree Appealing o o o o o o o Good o o o o o o o Pleasant o o o o o o o Unfavorable o o o o o o o Likeable o o o o o o o 133 Section 3 (continued) 10. To me, Old Navy is? Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree Appealing o o o o o o o Good o o o o o o o Pleasant o o o o o o o Unfavorable o o o o o o o Likeable o o o o o o o 11. To me, Blackberry is? Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree Appealing o o o o o o o Good o o o o o o o Pleasant o o o o o o o Unfavorable o o o o o o o Likeable o o o o o o o 12. To me, Marmot is? Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree Appealing o o o o o o o Good o o o o o o o Pleasant o o o o o o o Unfavorable o o o o o o o Likeable o o o o o o o 134 Section 3 (continued) 13. To me, Sony is? Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree Appealing o o o o o o o Good o o o o o o o Pleasant o o o o o o o Unfavorable o o o o o o o Likeable o o o o o o o 14. To me, Rainbow is? Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree Appealing o o o o o o o Good o o o o o o o Pleasant o o o o o o o Unfavorable o o o o o o o Likeable o o o o o o o 15. To me, Brooks Brothers is? Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree Appealing o o o o o o o Good o o o o o o o Pleasant o o o o o o o Unfavorable o o o o o o o Likeable o o o o o o o 135 Section 4 Directions: Please read the following press release describing an environmental concern before answering the next set of questions. Directions: Each statement below concerns the environmental cause described in the press release above. Please indicate your agreement with each statement. Statemen t Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree The issue presented in the above press release is important to me. o o o o o o o The issue presented in the above press release is boring to me. o o o o o o o The issue presented in the above press release is relevant to me. o o o o o o o The issue presented in the above press release is means o o o o o o o The Nature Conservancy is projecting to start a Freshwater Initiative that will place a focus on protecting and preserving the rivers and streams in Southern Africa over the next decade. Due to increased growth and development in the countries of the Southern Africa region, pollution in the area?s rivers, lakes, and streams has been rising dramatically in recent years. Scientists project that if pollution continues to increase at such an alarming rate, Southern Africa will see a decrease in the quality of the water over the next ten years. Decreased water quality will lead to a lower amount of biodiversity throughout the water systems and threaten the natural food chain and will lead to a decreased amount of water available for human consumption in the way of drinking water and recreation. 136 nothing to me. The issue presented in the above press release is significant to me. o o o o o o o The issue presented in the above press release is needed to me. o o o o o o o The issue presented in the above press release is beneficial to me. o o o o o o o Section 4 (continued) Directions: Please read the following press release describing an environmental concern before answering the next set of questions. The National Recycling Coalition has created an initiative called Recycle Now!, which focuses on increasing recycling throughout the Southeastern United States. The organization is concerned about increasing recycling in the southeast because the region has the nation?s largest hazardous waste landfill, located in Emelle, AL. In recent years, the amount of waste entering landfills has risen dramatically, and scientists project that if the rate of waste continues to grow at such a high rate, existing landfills in the region may be full within the next 5 years. New landfills will have to be created, and in some areas with a lack of available space this may bring waste near neighborhoods and schools. The best way to reduce waste in landfills is to recycle used goods rather than throw them away. 137 Directions: Each statement below concerns the environmental cause described in the press release above. Please indicate your agreement with each statement. Statement Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree The issue presented in the above press release is important to me. o o o o o o o The issue presented in the above press release is boring to me. o o o o o o o The issue presented in the above press release is relevant to me. o o o o o o o The issue presented in the above press release is means nothing to me. o o o o o o o The issue presented in the above press release is significant to me. o o o o o o o The issue presented in the above press release is needed to me. o o o o o o o The issue presented in the above press release is beneficial to me. o o o o o o o 138 APPENDIX B MOCK PRESS RELEASES (PRETEST 1) 139 Environmental Cause: Water Conservation Involvement Level: High The Nature Conservancy has enlisted the Southeastern U.S. rivers and streams as a part of its Freshwater Initiative, which makes focusing on protecting and preserving the rivers and streams a top priority for the organization. The southeast has the most lakes, rivers, and groundwater and we have the greatest number of species in our freshwater sources than any other region in the country*. Our water systems are threatened, however. In recent years, pollution in the area?s rivers, lakes, and streams has been rising dramatically. Scientists project that if pollution continues to increase at such an alarming rate, the southeast will see a significant decrease in the quality of the water as soon as the next six months. Decreased water quality will lead to a lower amount of biodiversity throughout the water systems and threaten the natural food chain, and will lead to decreased amount of water available for human consumption in the way of drinking water and recreation. *(Sources: Alabama Clean Water Partnership, Southern Environmental Law Center) Environmental Cause: Water Conservation Involvement Level: Low The Nature Conservancy is projecting to start a Freshwater Initiative that will place a focus on protecting and preserving the rivers and streams in Southern Africa over the next decade. Due to increased growth and development in the countries of the Southern Africa region, pollution in the area?s rivers, lakes, and streams has been rising 140 dramatically in recent years. Scientists project that if pollution continues to increase at such an alarming rate, Southern Africa will see a decrease in the quality of the water over the next ten years. Decreased water quality will lead to a lower amount of biodiversity throughout the water systems and threaten the natural food chain and will lead to a decreased amount of water available for human consumption in the way of drinking water and recreation. Environmental Cause: Recycling Involvement Level: High The National Recycling Coalition has created an initiative called Recycle Now!, which focuses on increasing recycling throughout the Southeastern United States. The organization is concerned about increasing recycling in the southeast because the region has the nation?s largest hazardous waste landfill, located in Emelle, AL. In recent years, the amount of waste entering landfills has risen dramatically, and scientists project that if the rate of waste continues to grow at such a high rate, existing landfills in the region may be full within the next 5 years. New landfills will have to be created, and in some areas with a lack of available space this may bring waste near neighborhoods and schools. The best way to reduce waste in landfills is to recycle used goods rather than throw them away. 141 Environmental Cause: Recycling Involvement Level: Low The International Recycling Coalition has created an initiative called Recycle Now!, which focuses on increasing recycling throughout England. The organization is concerned about increasing recycling in England because the amount of waste entering landfills has risen dramatically in recent years, and scientists project that if the rate of waste continues to grow at such a high rate, existing landfills in the region may be full within the next 20 years. New landfills will have to be created, and in some areas with a lack of available space this may bring waste near neighborhoods and schools. The best way to reduce waste in landfills is to recycle used goods rather than throw them away. 142 APPENDIX C EMAIL SCRIPT (PRETEST 1) 143 Dear Student, You are invited to participate in a research study to examine consumers' thoughts about alliances between causes and brands. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because of your status as college-aged consumer, which is of interest to this study. Your email address was obtained from Auburn University GroupWise, randomly selected by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. The study is being conducted by Beth Harben, Ph.D. student, under the direction of Dr. Sandra Forsythe, Wrangler Professor, and Dr. Wi-Suk Kwon, Assistant Professor, in the Auburn University Department of Consumer Affairs. This questionnaire asks only for general information. Your name or IP address will never be asked or recorded in the collection of the data or reporting of the results. All responses will remain confidential. Your participation is voluntary and you may decline to answer any questions you choose. If you do decide to participate, you will be asked to complete a questionnaire which will take approximately 15 minutes of your time, and your participation is completely voluntary. For each questionnaire that is completed, the researchers will donate $1 to the organization of your choice among the National Recycling Coalition, the American Cancer Society, the Nature Conservancy, the March of Dimes or the Red Cross. If you are interested in participating in this study, please click on the URL link below -- then click "Next" to go to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=vj4Q5J0N8hAdUjPF4UM9ZQ_3d_3d Your help in completing this survey is most appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to e-mail Bath Harben at harbeme@auburn.edu, Dr. Sandra Forsythe at forsysa@auburn.edu, or Dr. Wi-Suk Kwon at kwonwis@auburn.edu in the Department of Consumer Affairs at Auburn University. Thank you for your time, Beth Harben 144 APPENDIX D INFORMATION PAGE (PRETEST 1) 145 Auburn University College of Human Sciences Department of Consumer Affairs 308 Spidle Hall Auburn, AL 36849-5601 (334)844-4084 INFORMATION PAGE for a Research Study entitled ?Predicting Consumers? Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude and Purchase Intention? You are invited to participate in a research study to examine factors that may influence consumers? thoughts about alliances between causes and brands. The study is being conducted by Beth Harben, Ph.D. student, under the direction of Dr. Sandra Forsythe, Wrangler Professor, and Dr. Wi-Suk Kwon, Assistant Professor, in the Auburn University Department of Consumer Affairs. You were selected as a possible participant because you are a student at Auburn University and you are age 19 or older. If you decide to participate in this research study, you will be asked to click on the ?Next? link at the bottom of this page. This link will lead you to an online questionnaire. Your total time commitment for completing the questionnaire will be approximately 15 minutes. There is no direct benefit to you for participating in the study. There are no foreseeable risks associated with participating in this study. Research will be conducted confidentially. To thank you for your time, before submitting your survey you will be offered the choice of selecting a cause to receive a $1 donation. The list of causes to choose from includes the National Recycling Coalition, the American Cancer Society, The Nature Conservancy, the March of Dimes and the Red Cross. Findings from this study are hoped to increase understanding of the factors that may influence the success of cause-brand alliances. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you change your mind about participating while you are completing the questionnaire, you can stop filling out the questionnaire and close your browser without submitting the data. Once you have submitted anonymous data, it cannot be withdrawn due to it being unidentifiable. Your decision about whether or not to participate or to stop participating will not jeopardize your future relations with Auburn University or the Department of Consumer Affairs. Your privacy will be protected. Any information obtained in connection with this study will remain anonymous. Information collected through your participation may be 146 presented at professional meetings and published in professional journals with no personal identification of the participants. No IP address or any other identifiable data will be recorded as a result of your online survey participation. If you have questions about this study, please ask them now or contact Beth Harben by email, harbeme@auburn.edu or telephone, 334-844-1343 or my faculty advisors, Dr. Forsythe, by email forsysa@auburn.edu or by telephone, 334-844- 6458, or Dr. Kwon by email, kwonwis@auburn.edu, or telephone 334- 844- 4011. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the Institutional Review Board by phone (334)-844-5966 or e-mail at hsubjec@auburn.edu or IRBChair@auburn.edu. HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, YOU MUST DECIDE IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. IF YOU DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE, PLEASE CLICK ?CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE? TO ACCESS THE QUESTIONNAIRE. YOU MAY PRINT A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO KEEP. The Auburn University institutional Review Board has approved this document for use from 11/5/08 to 11/4/09. Protocol # 08-273 EX 0811 NEXT 147 APPENDIX E CAUSE DONATION QUESTION (PRETEST 1) 148 For each survey that is completed, a $1 donation will be made to one of the charitable organizations listed below. Which charitable organization should receive $1 for the completion of your survey? o National Recycling Coalition o American Cancer Society o The Nature Conservancy o March of Dimes o Red Cross 149 APPENDIX F DEBRIEFING PAGE (PRETEST 1) 150 Thank You for Participating in the Survey! The purpose of this form is to inform you that in section 4 of the questionnaire, the description of the environmental concern was not a real press release, but rather it was a hypothetical scenario created by the investigator. To increase your involvement with the environmental cause, it was necessary for us to make you believe that the press release was real so that your responses would resemble as closely as possible your sincere opinion as if it were a real situation in this study. We are hoping for your kind understanding of the procedure taken in this study. Thank you only again for participating in this research project. If you have questions about this study, please contact Beth Harben by email, harbeme@auburn.edu or telephone, 334-844-1343 or my faculty advisors, Dr. Forsythe, by email, forsysa@auburn.edu, or by telephone, 334-844-6458, or Dr. Kwon by email, kwonwis@auburn.edu, or telephone 334- 844- 4011. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the Institutional Review Board by phone (334)-844-5966 or e-mail at hsubjec@auburn.edu or IRBChair@auburn.edu. Done 151 APPENDIX G REVISED DEBRIEFING PAGE (PRETEST 1) 152 Thank You for Participating in the Survey! TO ENTER THE DRAWING FOR A CASH PRIZE, CLICK "DONE" BELOW The purpose of this form is to inform you that in section 4 of the questionnaire, the description of the environmental concern was not a real press release, but rather it was a hypothetical scenario created by the investigator. To increase your involvement with the environmental cause, it was necessary for us to make you believe that the press release was real so that your responses would resemble as closely as possible your sincere opinion as if it were a real situation in this study. We are hoping for your kind understanding of the procedure taken in this study. Thank you only again for participating in this research project. If you have questions about this study, please contact Beth Harben by email, harbeme@auburn.edu or telephone, 334-844-1343 or my faculty advisors, Dr. Forsythe, by email, forsysa@auburn.edu, or by telephone, 334-844-6458, or Dr. Kwon by email, kwonwis@auburn.edu, or telephone 334- 844- 4011. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the Institutional Review Board by phone (334)-844-5966 or e-mail at hsubjec@auburn.edu or IRBChair@auburn.edu. Done 153 APPENDIX H EMAIL COLLECTION WEBPAGE 154 Thank You for Your Participation! To enter in the drawing to win a cash prize, please type your email address in the box below. Please type your email address here: 155 APPENDIX I REVISED INFORMATION PAGE (PRETEST 1) 156 To begin the survey, click ?NEXT? at the bottom of the page Auburn University College of Human Sciences Department of Consumer Affairs 308 Spidle Hall Auburn, AL 36849-5601 (334)844-4084 INFORMATION PAGE for a Research Study entitled ?Predicting Consumers? Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude and Purchase Intention? You are invited to participate in a research study to examine factors that may influence consumers? thoughts about alliances between causes and brands. The study is being conducted by Beth Harben, Ph.D. student, under the direction of Dr. Sandra Forsythe, Wrangler Professor, and Dr. Wi-Suk Kwon, Assistant Professor, in the Auburn University Department of Consumer Affairs. You were selected as a possible participant because you are a student at Auburn University and you are age 19 or older. If you decide to participate in this research study, you will be asked to click on the ?Next? link at the bottom of this page. This link will lead you to an online questionnaire. Your total time commitment for completing the questionnaire will be approximately 15 minutes. There is no direct benefit to you for participating in the study. There are no foreseeable risks associated with participating in this study. Research will be conducted confidentially. To thank you for your time, after you have completed the survey you will be offered the chance to submit your email address to enter in a drawing to win one of ten cash prizes of $50. Findings from this study are hoped to increase understanding of the factors that may influence the success of cause-brand alliances. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you change your mind about participating while you are completing the questionnaire, you can stop filling out the questionnaire and close your browser without submitting the data. Once you have submitted anonymous data, it cannot be withdrawn due to it being unidentifiable. Your decision about whether or not to participate or to stop participating will not jeopardize your future relations with Auburn University or the Department of Consumer Affairs. Your privacy will be protected. Any information obtained in connection with this study will remain anonymous. To protect your privacy, if you choose to submit your email address to enter the prize drawing, your email address will be collected in a separate 157 database from your survey responses. Information collected through your participation may be presented at professional meetings and published in professional journals with no personal identification of the participants. No IP address or any other identifiable data will be recorded as a result of your online survey participation. If you have questions about this study, please ask them now or contact Beth Harben by email, harbeme@auburn.edu or telephone, 334-844-1343 or my faculty advisors, Dr. Forsythe, by email forsysa@auburn.edu or by telephone, 334-844- 6458, or Dr. Kwon by email, kwonwis@auburn.edu, or telephone 334- 844- 4011. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the Institutional Review Board by phone (334)-844-5966 or e-mail at hsubjec@auburn.edu or IRBChair@auburn.edu. HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, YOU MUST DECIDE IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. IF YOU DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE, PLEASE CLICK ?CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE? TO ACCESS THE QUESTIONNAIRE. YOU MAY PRINT A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO KEEP. The Auburn University institutional Review Board has approved this document for use from 2/19/09 to 11/4/09. Protocol # 08-273 EX 0811 NEXT 158 APPENDIX J REVISED EMAIL SCRIPT (PRETEST 1) 159 Fellow Auburn Student, I am a grad student here at Auburn and I hope you will take 10-15 minutes to share your thoughts about causes and brands in the attached survey. To thank you for your time, you will be entered into a drawing to win one of ten $50 cash prizes. Just click on the URL link below for more information about the study--then click 'next' to go to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=vj4Q5J0N8hAdUjPF4UM9ZQ_3d_3d Thanks so much! Beth Harben 160 APPENDIX K REMINDER EMAIL SCRIPT (PRETEST 1) 161 Fellow Auburn Student, If you have already completed the survey, Thank You Very Much and Please disregard this email. If you haven't had a chance to complete the survey, I would really appreciate your time! I am a grad student here at Auburn and I hope you will take 10-15 minutes to share your thoughts about causes and brands in the attached survey. To thank you for your time, you will be entered into a drawing to win one of ten $50 cash prizes. Just click on the URL link below for more information about the study?then click ?next? to go to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=vj4Q5J0N8hAdUjPF4UM9ZQ_3d_3d Thanks so much! Beth Harben 162 APPENDIX L QUESTIONNAIRE (PRETEST 2) 163 Pretest 2 Directions: In a local newspaper, a recent press release reported that The North Face is partnering with The Nature Conservancy to preserve the country's rivers, lakes, and streams. Please carefully read the following press release before answering the next set of questions. Directions: Each statement below concerns the environmental cause described in the press release above. Please indicate your agreement with each statement. Statement Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree The issue presented in the above press release is important to me. o o o o o o o The issue presented in the above press release is boring to me. o o o o o o o The issue presented in the above press release is relevant to me. o o o o o o o The North Face has partnered with The Nature Conservancy to help protect the nation?s lakes, rivers, and streams. The Nature Conservancy is committed to preserving our county?s water systems and will focus their upcoming Freshwater Campaign on several rivers and lakes from our state along with rivers and lakes from other states across the country over the next five years. In recent years, pollution in the country?s rivers, lakes, and streams has been rising dramatically and our state?s water systems have been threatened as well. Scientists project that if pollution continues to increase at such an alarming rate, we will see a significant decrease in the quality of the water as soon as the next 6 months. The North Face realizes that decreased water quality will lead to a decreased amount of water available for drinking water and recreation such as boating, fishing, and swimming. Therefore, to help protect the country?s water systems, The North Face will donate 10% of the purchase price of each North Face jacket sold to The Nature Conservancy?s Freshwater Campaign. 164 Statement Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree The issue presented in the above press release is means nothing to me. o o o o o o o The issue presented in the above press release is significant to me. o o o o o o o The issue presented in the above press release is needed to me. o o o o o o o The issue presented in the above press release is beneficial to me. o o o o o o o Directions: Provided that The North Face and The Nature Conservancy are working together as suggested in the press release above: Please indicate your evaluation of The North Face and The Nature Conservancy working together to preserve the country's rivers, lakes, and streams for the next set of questions. Statement Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree The North Face and The Nature Conservancy are consistent with each other. o o o o o o o The North Face and The Nature Conservancy together is a typical match. o o o o o o o The North Face and The Nature Conservancy represent each other well. o o o o o o o 165 Statement Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree The North Face and The Nature Conservancy complement each other. o o o o o o o The North Face and The Nature Conservancy fit together well. o o o o o o o The North Face and The Nature Conservancy together make sense. o o o o o o o 166 APPENDIX M MOCK PRESS RELEASES (PRETEST 2) 167 Cause-Brand Fit: High Involvement Level: High The North Face has partnered with The Nature Conservancy to help protect the nation?s lakes, rivers, and streams. The Nature Conservancy is committed to preserving our county?s water systems and will focus their upcoming Freshwater Campaign on several rivers and lakes from our state along with rivers and lakes from other states across the country over the next five years. In recent years, pollution in the country?s rivers, lakes, and streams has been rising dramatically and our state?s water systems have been threatened as well. Scientists project that if pollution continues to increase at such an alarming rate, we will see a significant decrease in the quality of the water as soon as the next 6 months. The North Face realizes that decreased water quality will lead to a decreased amount of water available for drinking water and recreation such as boating, fishing, and swimming. Therefore, to help protect the country?s water systems, The North Face will donate 10% of the purchase price of each North Face jacket sold to The Nature Conservancy?s Freshwater Campaign. Cause-Brand Fit: High Involvement Level: Low The North Face has partnered with The Nature Conservancy to help protect South Africa?s lakes, rivers, and streams. The Nature Conservancy is committed to preserving South Africa?s water systems and will focus their upcoming Freshwater Campaign on several rivers and lakes across the country over the next decade. In recent years, 168 pollution in South Africa?s rivers, lakes, and streams has been rising. Scientists project that if pollution continues to increase, South Africa will see a decrease in the quality of the water over the next 10 years. The North Face realizes that decreased water quality will lead to a decreased amount of water available for drinking water and recreation. Therefore, to help protect South Africa?s water systems, The North Face will donate 10% of the purchase price of each North Face jacket sold to The Nature Conservancy?s Freshwater Campaign. Cause-Brand Fit: Low Involvement Level: High Old Navy has partnered with The Nature Conservancy to help protect the nation?s lakes, rivers, and streams. The Nature Conservancy is committed to preserving our county?s water systems and will focus their upcoming Freshwater Campaign on several rivers and lakes from our state along with rivers and lakes from other states across the country over the next five years. In recent years, pollution in the country?s rivers, lakes, and streams has been rising dramatically and our state?s water systems have been threatened as well. Scientists project that if pollution continues to increase at such an alarming rate, the country will see a significant decrease in the quality of the water as soon as the next 6 months. Old Navy realizes that decreased water quality will lead to a decreased amount of water available for drinking water and recreation such as boating, fishing, and swimming. Therefore, to help protect the country?s water systems, Old Navy will donate 169 10% of the purchase price of each Old Navy jacket sold to The Nature Conservancy?s Freshwater Campaign. Cause-Brand Fit: Low Involvement Level: Low Old Navy has partnered with The Nature Conservancy to help protect South Africa?s lakes, rivers, and streams. The Nature Conservancy is committed to preserving South Africa?s water systems and will focus their upcoming Freshwater Campaign on several rivers and lakes across the country over the next decade. In recent years, pollution in South Africa?s rivers, lakes, and streams has been rising. Scientists project that if pollution continues to increase, South Africa will see a decrease in the quality of the water over the next 10 years. Old Navy realizes that decreased water quality will lead to a decreased amount of water available for drinking water and recreation. Therefore, to help protect South Africa?s water systems, Old Navy will donate 10% of the purchase price of each Old Navy jacket sold to The Nature Conservancy?s Freshwater Campaign. 170 APPENDIX N EMAIL SCRIPT (PRETEST 2) 171 Dear CAHS 2007 Student, I hope you will take 10 minutes to share your thoughts about causes and brands in the attached survey. To thank you for your time, you will be offered 5 points extra credit on Exam 2 in your CAHS 2007 course. Just click on the URL link below for more information about the study?then click ?next? to go to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=gyRoHsu2Va9ASpVRTPwDHw_3d_3d Thanks so much! Beth Harben 172 APPENDIX O INFORMATION PAGE (PRETEST 2) 173 Auburn University College of Human Sciences Department of Consumer Affairs 308 Spidle Hall Auburn, AL 36849-5601 (334)844-4084 INFORMATION PAGE for a Research Study entitled ?Predicting Consumers? Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude and Purchase Intention? You are invited to participate in a research study to examine factors that may influence consumers? thoughts about alliances between causes and brands. The study is being conducted by Beth Harben, Ph.D. student, under the direction of Dr. Sandra Forsythe, Wrangler Professor, and Dr. Wi-Suk Kwon, Assistant Professor, in the Auburn University Department of Consumer Affairs. You were selected as a possible participant because you are a student in CAHS 2000 or CAHS 2007 at Auburn University and you are age 19 or older. If you decide to participate in this research study, you will be asked to click on the ?Next? link at the bottom of this page. This link will lead you to an online questionnaire. Your total time commitment for completing the questionnaire will be approximately 15 minutes. There is no direct benefit to you for participating in the study. There are no foreseeable risks associated with participating in this study. Research will be conducted confidentially. To thank you for your time, you may receive 5 points extra credit in this course. To receive extra credit, after you have completed the survey, you will be directed to a thank you page. Read the page and then click ?Done?. You will be directed to a page that will instruct you to enter the code that your instructor assigned to you. In this way, the survey responses are collectedly separately from the extra credit codes, keeping your responses anonymous. Findings from this study are hoped to increase understanding of the factors that may influence the success of cause-brand alliances. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you change your mind about participating while you are completing the questionnaire, you can stop filling out the questionnaire and close your browser without submitting the data. Once you have submitted anonymous data, it cannot be withdrawn due to it being unidentifiable. Your decision about whether or not to participate or to stop participating will not jeopardize your future relations with Auburn University or the Department of Consumer Affairs. Your privacy will be protected. Any information obtained in connection with this study will remain anonymous. To ensure that your information remains anonymous, your 174 instructor will assign a code to each student. After you complete the survey, enter the code on the appropriate webpage. Your code will be collected in a separate database from your survey responses and so the investigator will have no way of identifying your information. Your instructor will receive a list of codes to assign the students who participated in the survey extra credit. Information collected through your participation may be presented at professional meetings and published in professional journals with no personal identification of the participants. No IP address or any other identifiable data will be recorded as a result of your online survey participation. If you have questions about this study, please contact Beth Harben by email, harbeme@auburn.edu or telephone, 334-844-1343 or my faculty advisors, Dr. Forsythe, by email forsysa@auburn.edu or by telephone, 334-844- 6458, or Dr. Kwon by email, kwonwis@auburn.edu, or telephone 334- 844- 4011. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the Institutional Review Board by phone (334)-844-5966 or e-mail at hsubjec@auburn.edu or IRBChair@auburn.edu. HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, YOU MUST DECIDE IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. IF YOU DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE, PLEASE CLICK ?NEXT? TO ACCESS THE QUESTIONNAIRE. YOU MAY PRINT A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO KEEP. The Auburn University Institutional Review Board has approved this document for use from March 11, 2009 to November 4, 2009. Protocol # 08-273 EX 0811 NEXT 175 APPENDIX P REMINDER EMAIL SCRIPT (PRETEST 2) 176 Dear CAHS 2000 Student, If you have already taken the survey, Thank You very much and please disregard this email. If you have not taken the survey, then I hope you will take 10 minutes to share your thoughts about causes and brands in the attached survey. To thank you for your time, you will be offered 5 points extra credit on Exam 2 in your CAHS 2000 course. Just click on the URL link below for more information about the study?then click ?next? to go to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=DiY4_2f5RQoELLRya2XYsLVw_3d_3d Thanks so much! Beth Harben P.S. The deadline for participating in the survey is Monday by Midnight! 177 APPENDIX Q QUESTIONNAIRE (MAIN EXPERIMENT) 178 Main Experiment Directions: The following set of questions asks for general information about you. Please select the appropriate answer for each question. What is your gender? 1. Male 2. Female What is your age? 1. 0-18 years old 2. 19-25 years old 3. 26-35 years old 4. 36-50 years old 5. 51-65 years old 6. 66 years old or over What is the highest level of education that you have completed? 1. 8th Grade or less 2. Some High School 3. High School Degree 4. Some College or Technical School 5. College Degree (2 years) 6. College Degree (4 years) 7. Some Graduate School 8. Graduate Degree (Masters, Doctorate, etc) Which of the following describes your employment situation? 1. Working Full-time 2. Working Part-time 3. Currently not employed Are you currently attending school? 1. Yes, enrolled in school full-time 2. Yes, enrolled in school part-time 3. No, I am not currently attending school What type of school are you currently attending? 1. Less than 2 year school (to achieve training, a license, a certificate, etc.) 2. 2 year institution 3. 4 year institution 179 In which state do you currently live? 1. ALABAMA 2. ALASKA 3. ARIZONA 4. ARKANSAS 5. CALIFORNIA 6. COLORADO 7. CONNECTICUT 8. DELAWARE 9. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 10. FLORIDA 11. GEORGIA 12. HAWAII 13. IDAHO 14. ILLINOIS 15. INDIANA 16. IOWA 17. KANSAS 18. KENTUCKY 19. LOUISIANA 20. MAINE 21. MARYLAND 22. MASSACHUSETTS 23. MICHIGAN 24. MINNESOTA 25. MISSISSIPPI 26. MISSOURI 27. MONTANA 28. NEBRASKA 29. NEVADA 30. NEW HAMPSHIRE 31. NEW JERSEY 32. NEW MEXICO 33. NEW YORK 34. NORTH CAROLINA 35. NORTH DAKOTA 36. OHIO 37. OKLAHOMA 38. OREGON 39. PENNSYLVANIA 40. RHODE ISLAND 41. SOUTH CAROLINA 42. SOUTH DAKOTA 180 43. TENNESSEE 44. TEXAS 45. UTAH 46. VERMONT 47. VIRGINIA 48. WASHINGTON 49. WEST VIRGINIA 50. WISCONSIN 51. WYOMING Directions: In a local newspaper, a recent press release reported that BRAND is partnering with The Nature Conservancy to preserve the CAUSE. Please carefully read the following press release before answering the next set of questions. At the end of this questionnaire there will be a brief quiz to see how much you can remember about the press release. We at The North Face are happy to announce that we are partnering with The Nature Conservancy to help protect the nation?s lakes, rivers, and streams. The Nature Conservancy will focus their upcoming Freshwater Campaign on preserving several rivers and lakes from your state along with rivers and lakes from other states across the country over the next five years. In recent years, pollution in the country?s rivers, lakes, and streams has been rising dramatically and your state?s water systems have been threatened as well. Scientists project that if pollution continues to increase at such an alarming rate, we will see a significant decrease in the quality of the water as soon as the next 6 months. At The North Face, we realize that decreased water quality will lead to a decreased amount of water available for drinking water and recreation such as boating, fishing, and swimming. Therefore, to help protect the country?s water systems, we at The North Face will donate 10% of the purchase price of each North Face jacket sold to The Nature Conservancy?s Freshwater Campaign. 181 Directions: Provided that BRAND and The Nature Conservancy are working together as suggested in the press release above, for the next set of questions, please select the number that best describes your evaluation of BRAND and The Nature Conservancy working together to preserve the CAUSE. To me, BRAND working with The Nature Conservancy to preserve the CAUSE is: 1 Unappealing 2 3 4 5 6 7 Appealing To me, BRAND working with The Nature Conservancy to preserve the CAUSE is: 1 Bad 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good To me, BRAND working with The Nature Conservancy to preserve the CAUSE is: 1 Unpleasant 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pleasant 182 To me, BRAND working with The Nature Conservancy to preserve the CAUSE is: 1 Unfavorable 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable To me, BRAND working with The Nature Conservancy to preserve the CAUSE is: 1 Unlikable 2 3 4 5 6 7 Likable 183 Directions: Suppose that BRAND and The Nature Conservancy are working together as described in the previous press release to preserve the CAUSE. The following statements describe what people may think or feel about BRAND and The Nature Conservancy working together. For each statement, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statement based on everything you know about BRAND and The Nature Conservancy working together to preserve the CAUSE. Statement Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree BRAND supported The Nature Consevancy because ultimately they care about their customers. o o o o o o o BRAND partnered with The Nature Conservancy to persuade me to buy their products. o o o o o o o BRAND really cares about getting The Nature Conservancy information to their customers . o o o o o o o BRAND supported The Nature Consevancy because ultimately they care about their customers. o o o o o o o 184 BRAND partnered with The Nature Conservancy to persuade me to buy their products. o o o o o o o Statement Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree BRAND really cares about getting The Nature Conservancy information to their customers. o o o o o o o BRAND partnered with The Nature Conservancy because ultimately they care about their profits. o o o o o o o BRAND partnered with The Nature Conservancy because joining with a cause creates a positive corporate image. o o o o o o o Ultimately, BRAND benefits by partnering with The Nature Conservancy. o o o o o o o BRAND partnered with The Nature Conservancy because morally it was the right thing to do. o o o o o o o BRAND does not have a genuine concern for the welfare of their customers. o o o o o o o 185 Directions: The following questions address your intentions of purchasing a jacket from BRAND, knowing that BRAND is supporting The Nature Conservancy to preserve the CAUSE. For each statement, please select the number that best represents your intention to purchase a North Face jacket, knowing that the brand supports The Nature Conservancy to preserve the CAUSE. Very Low Somewhat High Very High The likelihood of purchasing a BRAND jacket o o o o o o o The probability that I would consider buying a BRAND jacket o o o o o o o My willingness to buy a BRAND jacket o o o o o o o Directions: Again, knowing that BRAND and The Nature Conservancy are working together to preserve the CAUSE, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement based on everything you know about BRAND and The Nature Conservancy partnering to preserve the CAUSE. 186 Statement Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree BRAND and The Nature Conservancy are consistent with each other. o o o o o o o Statement Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree BRAND and The Nature Conservancy together is a typical match. o o o o o o o BRAND and The Nature Conservancy represent each other well. o o o o o o o BRAND and The Nature Conservancy complement each other. o o o o o o o BRAND and The Nature Conservancy fit together well. o o o o o o o BRAND and The Nature Conservancy together make sense. o o o o o o o Directions: Please answer the following questions about the environmental cause described in the previous press release. To me, the issue presented in the previous press release is: 1 Unimportant 2 187 3 4 5 6 7 Important To me, the issue presented in the previous press release is: 1 Boring 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting To me, the issue presented in the previous press release is: 1 Irrelevant 2 3 4 5 6 7 Relevant To me, the issue presented in the previous press release is: 1 Means Nothing 2 3 4 5 6 7 Means a Lot to Me To me, the issue presented in the previous press release is: 1 Insignificant 2 188 3 4 5 6 7 Significant To me, the issue presented in the previous press release is: 1 Not Needed 2 3 4 5 6 7 Needed To me, the issue presented in the previous press release is: 1 Not Beneficial 2 3 4 5 6 7 Beneficial Directions: Please answer the following questions concerning the press release that you read. Who was the source of the message? 1. The Nature Conservancy 2. BRAND Where will the cause-brand alliance benefit? 1. The U.S. 2. South Africa 189 Directions: The following set of questions asks for general information about you. Please select the appropriate answer for each question. What is your major? What is your class standing? 1. Freshman 2. Sophomore 3. Junior 4. Senior Of which racial group do you consider yourself to be a member? 1. African Amercian/Black 2. Asian/Pacific Islander 3. Caucasian/White 4. Hispanic 5. Native American/Alaskan Native 6. Bi-Racial 7. Other (please specify) *Note: BRAND = BRAND or Old Navy, CAUSE = The nation?s rivers, lakes, and streams, or South Africa?s rivers, lakes, and streams 190 APPENDIX R MOCK PRESS RELEASES (MAIN EXPERIMENT) 191 Involvement Level: High Cause-Brand Fit: High Message Source: Brand We at The North Face are happy to announce that we are partnering with The Nature Conservancy to help protect the nation?s lakes, rivers, and streams. The Nature Conservancy will focus their upcoming Freshwater Campaign on preserving several rivers and lakes from your state along with rivers and lakes from other states across the country over the next five years. In recent years, pollution in the country?s rivers, lakes, and streams has been rising dramatically and your state?s water systems have been threatened as well. Scientists project that if pollution continues to increase at such an alarming rate, we will see a significant decrease in the quality of the water as soon as the next 6 months. At The North Face, we realize that decreased water quality will lead to a decreased amount of water available for drinking water and recreation such as boating, fishing, and swimming. Therefore, to help protect the country?s water systems, we at The North Face will donate 10% of the purchase price of each North Face jacket sold to The Nature Conservancy?s Freshwater Campaign. 192 Involvement Level: High Cause-Brand Fit: High Message Source: Cause We at The Nature Conservancy are happy to announce that The North Face is partnering with us to help protect the nation?s lakes, rivers, and streams. At The Nature Conservancy, we are focusing our upcoming Freshwater Campaign on preserving several rivers and lakes from your state along with rivers and lakes from other states across the country over the next five years. In recent years, pollution in the country?s rivers, lakes, and streams has been rising dramatically and your state?s water systems have been threatened as well. Scientists project that if pollution continues to increase at such an alarming rate, we will see a significant decrease in the quality of the water as soon as the next 6 months. We at The Nature Conservancy realize that decreased water quality will lead to a decreased amount of water available for drinking water and recreation such as boating, fishing, and swimming. Therefore, we believe that with the help of The North Face by offering to donate 10% of the purchase price of each North Face jacket sold to The Nature Conservancy?s Freshwater Campaign, we can protect the country?s water systems. 193 Involvement Level: Low Cause-Brand Fit: High Message Source: Brand We at The North Face are happy to announce that we are partnering with The Nature Conservancy to help protect South Africa?s lakes, rivers, and streams. The Nature Conservancy will focus their upcoming Freshwater Campaign on preserving several rivers and lakes across South Africa over the next decade. In recent years, pollution in the country?s rivers, lakes, and streams has been rising dramatically. Scientists project that if pollution continues to increase at such an alarming rate, South Africa will see a significant decrease in the quality of the water over the next 10 years. At The North Face, we realize that decreased water quality will lead to a decreased amount of water available for drinking water and recreation such as boating, fishing, and swimming. Therefore, to help protect South Africa?s water systems, we at BRAND will donate 10% of the purchase price of each North Face jacket sold to The Nature Conservancy?s Freshwater Campaign. Involvement Level: Low Cause-Brand Fit: High Message Source: Cause We at The Nature Conservancy are happy to announce that The North Face is partnering with us to help protect South Africa?s lakes, rivers, and streams. 194 At The Nature Conservancy, we are focusing our upcoming Freshwater Campaign on preserving several rivers and lakes across South Africa over the next decade. In recent years, pollution in the country?s rivers, lakes, and streams has been rising dramatically. Scientists project that if pollution continues to increase at such an alarming rate, South Africa will see a significant decrease in the quality of the water over the next 10 years. We at The Nature Conservancy realize that decreased water quality will lead to a decreased amount of water available for drinking water and recreation such as boating, fishing, and swimming. Therefore, we believe that with the help of The North Face by offering to donate 10% of the purchase price of each North Face jacket sold to The Nature Conservancy?s Freshwater Campaign, we can protect South Africa's water systems. Involvement Level: High Cause-Brand Fit: Low Message Source: Brand We at Old Navy are happy to announce that we are partnering with The Nature Conservancy to help protect the nation?s lakes, rivers, and streams. The Nature Conservancy will focus their upcoming Freshwater Campaign on preserving several rivers and lakes from your state along with rivers and lakes from other states across the country over the next five years. In recent years, pollution in the country?s rivers, lakes, and streams has been rising dramatically and your state?s water systems have been threatened as well. Scientists project that if pollution continues to 195 increase at such an alarming rate, we will see a significant decrease in the quality of the water as soon as the next 6 months. At Old Navy, we realize that decreased water quality will lead to a decreased amount of water available for drinking water and recreation such as boating, fishing, and swimming. Therefore, to help protect the country?s water systems, we at Old Navy will donate 10% of the purchase price of each Old Navy jacket sold to The Nature Conservancy?s Freshwater Campaign. Involvement Level: High Cause-Brand Fit: Low Message Source: Cause We at The Nature Conservancy are happy to announce that Old Navy is partnering with us to help protect the nation?s lakes, rivers, and streams. At The Nature Conservancy, we are focusing our upcoming Freshwater Campaign on preserving several rivers and lakes from your state along with rivers and lakes from other states across the country over the next five years. In recent years, pollution in the country?s rivers, lakes, and streams has been rising dramatically and your state?s water systems have been threatened as well. Scientists project that if pollution continues to increase at such an alarming rate, we will see a significant decrease in the quality of the water as soon as the next 6 months. We at The Nature Conservancy realize that decreased water quality will lead to a decreased amount of water available for drinking water and recreation such as boating, 196 fishing, and swimming. Therefore, we believe that with the help of Old Navy by offering to donate 10% of the purchase price of each Old Navy jacket sold to The Nature Conservancy?s Freshwater Campaign, we can protect the country?s water systems. Involvement Level: Low Cause-Brand Fit: Low Message Source: Brand We at Old Navy are happy to announce that we are partnering with The Nature Conservancy to help protect South Africa?s lakes, rivers, and streams. The Nature Conservancy will focus their upcoming Freshwater Campaign on preserving several rivers and lakes across South Africa over the next decade. In recent years, pollution in the country?s rivers, lakes, and streams has been rising dramatically. Scientists project that if pollution continues to increase at such an alarming rate, South Africa will see a significant decrease in the quality of the water over the next 10 years. At Old Navy, we realize that decreased water quality will lead to a decreased amount of water available for drinking water and recreation such as boating, fishing, and swimming. Therefore, to help protect South Africa?s water systems, we at Old Navy will donate 10% of the purchase price of each Old Navy jacket sold to The Nature Conservancy?s Freshwater Campaign. 197 Involvement Level: Low Cause-Brand Fit: Low Message Source: Cause We at The Nature Conservancy are happy to announce that Old Navy is partnering with us to help protect South Africa?s lakes, rivers, and streams. At The Nature Conservancy, we are focusing our upcoming Freshwater Campaign on preserving several rivers and lakes across South Africa over the next decade. In recent years, pollution in the country?s rivers, lakes, and streams has been rising dramatically. Scientists project that if pollution continues to increase at such an alarming rate, South Africa will see a significant decrease in the quality of the water over the next 10 years. We at The Nature Conservancy realize that decreased water quality will lead to a decreased amount of water available for drinking water and recreation such as boating, fishing, and swimming. Therefore, we believe that with the help of Old Navy by offering to donate 10% of the purchase price of each Old Navy jacket sold to The Nature Conservancy?s Freshwater Campaign, we can protect South Africa's water systems. 198 APPENDIX S INFORMATION PAGE (MAIN EXPERIMENT) 199 THIS PAGE CONTAINS INFORAMTION ABOUT PARTICIPATING IN THE SURVEY. TO SKIP THIS PAGE AND BEGIN THE SURVEY, CLICK ?CONTINUE? AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE. INFORMATION PAGE for a Research Study entitled ?Predicting Consumers? Cause-Brand Alliance Attitude and Purchase Intention? You are invited to participate in a research study to examine factors that may influence consumers? thoughts about alliances between causes and brands. The study is being conducted by Beth Harben, Ph.D. student, under the direction of Dr. Sandra Forsythe, Wrangler Professor, and Dr. Wi-Suk Kwon, Assistant Professor, in the Auburn University Department of Consumer Affairs. You were selected as a possible participant because you are a member of a consumer panel of Peanut Labs and are 19 years old or older. If you decide to participate in this research study, you will be asked to click on the ?continue? link at the bottom of this page. This link will lead you to an online questionnaire. Your total time commitment for completing the questionnaire will be approximately 10 minutes. There is no direct benefit to you and no foreseeable risks for participating in the study. Research will be conducted confidentially. Findings from this study are hoped to increase understanding of the factors that may influence the success of cause-brand alliances. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you change your mind about participating while you are completing the questionnaire, you can stop filling out the questionnaire and close your browser without submitting the data. Once you have submitted anonymous data, it cannot be withdrawn due to it being unidentifiable. Your decision about whether or not to participate or to stop participating will not jeopardize your future relations with Auburn University or the Department of Consumer Affairs. Your privacy will be protected. Any information obtained in connection with this study will remain anonymous. Information collected through your participation may be presented at professional meetings and published in professional journals with no personal identification of the participants. No IP address or any other identifiable data will be recorded by the researcher as a result of your online survey participation. 200 If you have questions about this study, please contact Beth Harben by email, Harbeme@auburn.edu or telephone, 334-844-1343 or my faculty advisors, Dr. Forsythe, by email forsysa@auburn.edu or by telephone, 334-844- 6458, or Dr. Kwon by email, kwonwis@auburn.edu, or telephone 334- 844- 4011. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the Institutional Review Board by phone (334)-844-5966 or e-mail at hsubjec@auburn.edu or IRBChair@auburn.edu. HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, YOU MUST DECIDE IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. IF YOU DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE, PLEASE CLICK ?NEXT? TO ACCESS THE QUESTIONNAIRE. YOU MAY PRINT A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO KEEP. The Auburn University Institutional Review Board has approved this document for use from March 25, 2009 to November 4, 2009. Protocol # 08-273 EX 0811 NEXT 201 APPENDIX T DEBRIEFING PAGE (MAIN EXPERIMENT) 202 Thank You for Participating in the Survey!!!! The purpose of this page is to inform you that in the beginning of the questionnaire the description of the cause and the brand working together was not a real press release, but rather it was a hypothetical scenario created by the investigator. To increase your involvement with the cause-brand alliance, it was necessary for us to make you believe that the press release was real so that your responses would resemble as closely as possible your sincere opinion as if it were a real situation in this study. We are hoping for your kind understanding of the procedure taken in this study. Thank you again for participating in this research project. If you have questions about this study, please contact Beth Harben by email, harbeme@auburn.edu or telephone, 334-844-1343 or my faculty advisors, Dr. Forsythe, by email, forsysa@auburn.edu, or by telephone, 334-844-6458, or Dr. Kwon by email, kwonwis@auburn.edu, or telephone 334- 844- 4011. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the Institutional Review Board by phone (334)-844-5966 or e-mail at hsubjec@auburn.edu or IRBChair@auburn.edu. 203 APPENDIX U SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION BY STATE 204 Gr ou p 1 CI Fm Gr ou p 2 CI FM Gr ou p 3 ciF m Gr ou p 4 ciF M Gr ou p 5 CI fm Gr ou p 6 CI fM Gr ou p 7 cif m Gr ou p 8 cif M To tal Sta te f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % Al ab am a 2 2. 0 2 .3 0 Al ask a Ar izo na 2 2. 1 1 1. 4 2 2. 5 3 3. 4 2 2. 5 3 3. 3 2 3. 1 15 2. 2 Ar ka nsa s 2 2. 1 2 2. 7 2 2. 5 2 2. 3 2 2. 5 1 1. 1 1 1. 5 12 1. 8 Ca lifo rni a 15 1 5.5 15 2 0.3 17 2 1.5 12 1 3.8 14 1 4.1 14 1 7.5 8 8. 9 10 1 5.4 10 5 1 5.6 Co lor ad o 1 1. 0 2 2. 7 1 1. 1 1 1. 3 5 .7 5 Co nn ect icu t 1 1. 0 3 4. 1 2 2. 5 2 2. 3 1 1. 3 1 1. 5 10 1. 5 De law are 1 1. 0 1 .1 5 Di str ict of Co lum bia 5 5. 1 2 2. 5 1 1. 5 8 1. 2 Flo rid a 6 6. 2 3 4. 1 1 1. 3 6 6. 9 5 5. 1 3 3. 8 7 7. 8 4 6. 2 35 5. 2 Ge org ia 1 1. 0 2 2. 7 1 1. 3 5 5. 7 5 5. 1 3 3. 8 5 5. 6 1 1. 5 23 3. 4 Ha wa ii 2 2. 5 1 1. 1 2 2. 0 2 2. 5 1 1. 5 8 1. 2 Ida ho 2 2. 5 2 .3 0 Illi no is 6 6. 2 1 1. 4 3 3. 8 3 3. 4 6 6. 1 2 2. 2 2 3. 1 23 3. 4 Ind ian a 1 1. 0 1 1. 4 1 1. 3 3 3. 4 3 3. 0 1 1. 3 4 4. 4 4 6. 2 18 2. 3 Iow a 1 1. 0 2 2. 7 3 3. 8 1 1. 1 3 3. 0 10 1. 5 Ka nsa s 1 1. 0 2 2. 3 1 1. 0 1 1. 5 5 .7 5 Ke ntu ck y 1 1. 3 1 1. 1 2 .3 0 Lo uis ian a 2 2. 1 2 2. 7 1 1. 3 1 1. 1 1 1. 5 7 1. 0 Ma ine 2 2. 1 1 1. 0 1 1. 3 1 1. 5 5 .7 5 Ma ryl an d 4 4. 1 1 1. 4 3 3. 8 3 3. 4 2 2. 0 2 2. 5 5 5. 6 1 1. 5 21 3. 1 (con tin ue d) Ta ble U .1 Sa mp le Di str ibu tio n b y S tat e 205 Ta ble U .1 (co nti nu ed ) Gr ou p 1 CI Fm Gr ou p 2 CI FM Gr ou p 3 ciF m Gr ou p 4 ciF M Gr ou p 5 CI fm Gr ou p 6 CI fM Gr ou p 7 cif m Gr ou p 8 cif M To tal Sta te f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % Ma ssa ch use tts 3 3. 1 1 1. 4 1 1. 3 1 1. 1 1 1. 0 1 1. 3 1 1. 1 1 1. 5 10 1. 5 Mi ch iga n 3 3. 1 3 4. 1 3 3. 8 3 3. 4 5 5. 1 2 2. 5 3 3. 3 3 4. 6 25 3. 7 Mi nn eso ta 6 6. 2 1 1. 4 1 1. 3 2 2. 3 6 6. 1 2 2. 5 3 3. 3 1 1. 5 22 3. 3 Mi ssi ssi pp i 1 1. 0 2 2. 0 1 1. 3 2 3. 1 6 .8 9 Mi sso uri 3 3. 1 1 1. 4 1 1. 1 1 1. 0 6 .8 9 Mo nta na 1 1. 3 1 .1 5 Ne bra sk a 1 1. 4 1 1. 3 1 1. 0 1 1. 3 1 1. 5 5 .7 5 Ne va da 1 1. 4 1 1. 5 2 .3 0 Ne w Ha mp shi re 1 1. 0 1 .1 5 Ne w Jer sey 1 1. 0 5 6. 8 1 1. 3 2 2. 3 3 3. 0 2 2. 5 3 3. 3 17 2. 5 Ne w Me xic o 2 2. 3 2 .3 0 Ne w Yo rk 8 8. 2 6 8. 1 11 1 3.9 6 6. 9 8 8. 1 9 1 1.3 16 1 7.8 5 7. 7 69 1 0.3 No rth Ca rol ina 1 1. 0 3 3. 8 3 3. 4 2 2. 0 1 1. 3 1 1. 1 2 3. 1 13 1. 9 No rth D ak ota Oh io 2 2. 1 1 1. 4 3 3. 8 3 3. 4 3 3. 0 5 6. 3 4 4. 4 4 6. 2 25 3. 7 Ok lah om a 1 1. 0 1 1. 4 1 1. 3 1 1. 1 1 1. 3 1 1. 1 1 1. 5 7 1. 0 Or eg on 3 3. 1 1 1. 4 2 2. 3 2 2. 5 1 1. 5 9 1. 3 Pe nn syl va nia 3 3. 1 2 2. 7 2 2. 5 5 5. 7 6 6. 1 1 1. 3 7 7. 8 3 4. 6 29 4. 3 (co nti nu ed ) 206 Ta ble U .1 (co nti nu ed ) Gr ou p 1 CI Fm Gr ou p 2 CI FM Gr ou p 3 ciF m Gr ou p 4 ciF M Gr ou p 5 CI fm Gr ou p 6 CI fM Gr ou p 7 cif m Gr ou p 8 cif M To tal Sta te f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % Rh od e I sla nd 2 2. 1 1 1. 0 1 1. 3 1 1. 1 5 .7 5 So uth Ca rol ina 1 1. 1 1 1. 0 1 1. 5 3 .4 5 So uth D ak ota 2 2. 5 1 1. 0 3 .4 5 Te nn ess ee 2 2. 1 1 1. 3 1 1. 1 2 3. 1 6 .8 9 Te xa s 6 6. 2 6 8. 1 5 6. 3 4 4. 6 3 3. 0 4 5. 0 6 6. 7 1 1. 5 35 5. 3 Ut ah 1 1. 4 1 1. 0 2 .3 0 Ve rm on t Vi rgi nia 4 5. 4 1 1. 3 2 2. 3 1 1. 0 3 3. 8 2 2. 2 3 4. 6 16 2. 4 W ash ing ton 4 4. 1 3 3. 7 2 2. 5 1 1. 1 4 4. 0 5 6. 3 1 1. 5 20 3. 0 W est V irg ini a 1 1. 0 2 2. 3 2 2. 5 1 1. 1 6 .8 9 W isc on sin 2 2. 1 1 1. 4 2 2. 5 1 1. 1 1 1. 0 4 4. 4 1 1. 5 12 1. 8 W yo mi ng 1 1. 0 1 .1 5 n a 97 74 79 87 99 80 90 65 67 1 a. Ex clu de s c ase s w ith m iss ing va lue s. No te. C I = H igh C au se Inv olv em en t, F = Hi gh C au se- Br an d F it, M = C au se Me ssa ge So urc e, ci = l ow ca use in vo lve me nt, f = l ow ca use -br an d f it, m = b ran d m ess ag e s ou rce