The Effect of Participation Effort on CSR Participation Intention: The Moderating Role of Construal Level on Consumer Perception of Warm Glow and Perceived Costs
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
2.1.1. Consumer Participation in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
2.1.2. Level of Participation Effort
2.1.3. Construal Level
2.2. Methodology
2.2.1. Data Collection and Sample
2.2.2. Development of Experimental Stimuli
2.2.3. Methods
2.2.4. Measures
3. Results
3.1. Manipulation Check
3.2. Model 1: Participation Effort on Warm Glow and Costs, the Moderating Role of Construal Level
3.3. Model 2: Participation Effort on Participation Intention, the Moderating Role of Construal Level
3.4. Model 3: Participation Effort and Participation Intention, the Mediating Role of Warm Glow and Perceived Costs, and the Moderating Role of Construal Level
4. Discussion and Conclusions
4.1. Summary of Findings and Implications
4.2. Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- Ashley, C.; Tuten, T. Creative strategies in social media marketing: An exploratory study of branded social content and consumer engagement. Psychol. Mark. 2015, 32, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woisetschläger, D.M.; Hartleb, V.; Blut, M. How to make brand communities work: Antecedents and consequences of consumer participation. J. Relatsh. Mark. 2008, 7, 237–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barger, V.; Peltier, J.W.; Schultz, D.E. Social media and consumer engagement: A review and research agenda. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2016, 10, 268–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vivek, S.D.; Beatty, S.E.; Morgan, R.M. Customer engagement: Exploring customer relationships beyond purchase. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2012, 20, 122–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sana-ur, R.; Beise-Zee, R. Corporate social responsibility or cause-related marketing? The role of cause specificity of CSR. J. Consum. Mark. 2011, 28, 27–39. [Google Scholar]
- Zasuwa, G. The role of company-cause fit and company involvement in consumer responses to CSR initiatives: A meta-analytic review. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moye, J. A World Without Waste: Coca-Cola Announces Ambitious Sustainable Packaging Goal. Coca Cola, 19 January 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Jed, E. Coke Machine In China Uses Facial Recognition To Dispense Drinks, Reward Recycling. Vending Times Out, 1 October 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Group, H.M. Launching the 5th gift car donation campaign. Hyundai Motor Group, 8 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
- CREEK, B. Fight Hunger. Spark Change. Here’s how…. PRNewswire, 9 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Howie, K.M.; Yang, L.; Vitell, S.J.; Bush, V.; Vorhies, D. Consumer participation in cause-related marketing: An examination of effort demands and defensive denial. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 147, 679–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kneebone, S.; Fielding, K.; Smith, L. It’s what you do and where you do it: Perceived similarity in household water saving behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018, 55, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Habel, J.; Schons, L.M.; Alavi, S.; Wieseke, J. Warm glow or extra charge? The ambivalent effect of corporate social responsibility activities on customers’ perceived price fairness. J. Mark. 2016, 80, 84–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Trope, Y.; Liberman, N. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 117, 440–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ülkümen, G.; Cheema, A. Framing goals to influence personal savings: The role of specificity and construal level. J. Mark. Res. 2011, 48, 958–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, J.; Dawar, N. Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2004, 21, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lii, Y.-S.; Lee, M. Doing right leads to doing well: When the type of CSR and reputation interact to affect consumer evaluations of the firm. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 105, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoon, Y.; Gürhan-Canli, Z.; Schwarz, N. The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. J. Consum. Psychol. 2006, 16, 377–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sen, S.; Bhattacharya, C.B. Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. J. Mark. Res. 2001, 38, 225–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, X.; Bhattacharya, C.B. Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. J. Mark. 2006, 70, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, D.; Lee, J. The effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) fit and CSR consistency on company evaluation: The role of CSR support. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brodie, R.J.; Hollebeek, L.D.; Jurić, B.; Ilić, A. Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. J. Serv. Res. 2011, 14, 252–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollebeek, L. Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. J. Strateg. Mark. 2011, 19, 555–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarvis, W.; Ouschan, R.; Burton, H.J.; Soutar, G.; O’Brien, I.M. Customer engagement in CSR: A utility theory model with moderating variables. J. Serv. Theory Pract. 2017, 27, 833–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alhouti, S.; Johnson, C.M.; Holloway, B.B. Corporate social responsibility authenticity: Investigating its antecedents and outcomes. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 1242–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apenes Solem, B.A. Influences of customer participation and customer brand engagement on brand loyalty. J. Consum. Mark. 2016, 33, 332–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, A.; Rice, D.H. The impact of perceptual congruence on the effectiveness of cause-related marketing campaigns. J. Consum. Psychol. 2015, 25, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Men, L.R.; Tsai, W.-H.S. Perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes of organization–public engagement on corporate social networking sites. J. Public Relat. Res. 2014, 26, 417–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goswami, I.; Urminsky, O. When should the ask be a nudge? The effect of default amounts on charitable donations. J. Mark. Res. 2016, 53, 829–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strahilevitz, M.; Myers, J.G. Donations to charity as purchase incentives: How well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell. J. Consum. Res. 1998, 24, 434–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winterich, K.P.; Barone, M.J. Warm glow or cold, hard cash? Social identity effects on consumer choice for donation versus discount promotions. J. Mark. Res. 2011, 48, 855–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morewedge, C.K.; Holtzman, L.; Epley, N. Unfixed resources: Perceived costs, consumption, and the accessible account effect. J. Consum. Res. 2007, 34, 459–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Morwitz, V.G.; Greenleaf, E.A.; Johnson, E.J. Divide and prosper: Consumers’ reactions to partitioned prices. J. Mark. Res. 1998, 35, 453–463. [Google Scholar]
- Staelin, R. The effects of consumer education on consumer product safety behavior. J. Consum. Res. 1978, 5, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liberman, N.; Trope, Y. The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 75, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liberman, N.; Trope, Y.; Wakslak, C. Construal level theory and consumer behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 2007, 17, 113–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsee, C.K.; Weber, E.U. A fundamental prediction error: Self–others discrepancies in risk preference. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 1997, 126, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trope, Y.; Liberman, N.; Wakslak, C. Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 2007, 17, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bornemann, T.; Homburg, C. Psychological distance and the dual role of price. J. Consum. Res. 2011, 38, 490–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Buhrmester, M.; Kwang, T.; Gosling, S.D. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2016, 6, 3–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paolacci, G.; Chandler, J. Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 23, 184–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1998; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
- Cowan, K.; Kinley, T. Green spirit: Consumer empathies for green apparel. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2014, 38, 493–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, L.; Kukar-Kinney, M.; Monroe, K.B. Effects of consumers’ efforts on price and promotion fairness perceptions. J. Retail. 2010, 86, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fujita, K.; Trope, Y.; Liberman, N.; Levin-Sagi, M. Construal levels and self-control. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2006, 90, 351–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Hong, J.; Zhou, R. How long did I wait? The effect of construal levels on consumers’ wait duration judgments. J. Consum. Res. 2017, 45, 169–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vallacher, R.R.; Wegner, D.M. Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 57, 660–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, P.; Eisend, M.; Apaolaza, V.; D’Souza, C. Warm glow vs. altruistic values: How important is intrinsic emotional reward in proenvironmental behavior? J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 52, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Västfjäll, D.; Slovic, P.; Mayorga, M. Pseudoinefficacy: Negative feelings from children who cannot be helped reduce warm glow for children who can be helped. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 616. [Google Scholar]
- Bridger, E.K.; Wood, A. Gratitude mediates consumer responses to marketing communications. Eur. J. Mark. 2017, 51, 44–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grau, S.L.; Folse, J.A.G. Cause-related marketing (CRM): The influence of donation proximity and message-framing cues on the less-involved consumer. J. Advert. 2007, 36, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X.; Lynch, J.G., Jr.; Chen, Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. J. Consum. Res. 2010, 37, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Labroo, A.A.; Patrick, V.M. Psychological distancing: Why happiness helps you see the big picture. J. Consum. Res. 2008, 35, 800–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spassova, G.; Lee, A.Y. Looking into the future: A match between self-view and temporal distance. J. Consum. Res. 2013, 40, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hankyoreh. More “donation and health staircases” coming to Seoul. Hankyoreh, 15 January 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bhattacharya, C.B.; Sen, S. Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2004, 47, 9–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nan, X.; Heo, K. Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives: Examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing. J. Advert. 2007, 36, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Characteristics | N | % | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 59 | 57.3% |
Female | 44 | 42.7% | |
Age | 20–29 | 33 | 32.0% |
30–39 | 38 | 36.9% | |
40–49 | 17 | 16.5% | |
50–59 | 10 | 9.7% | |
≥60 | 5 | 4.9% |
Variables | Measure Items | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|
Participation effort | I need to put a lot of effort into participating in this campaign. | 0.930 |
I have to spend a lot of effort in participating in this campaign. | ||
I feel that I spent a lot of effort in trying to participate in this campaign. | ||
Warm glow | If I participate in this campaign, I will experience a warm glow feeling. | 0.942 |
Participating in this campaign gives me a pleasant feeling of personal satisfaction. | ||
If I participate in this campaign, I will feel happy contributing to society. | ||
If I participate in this campaign, I will feel pleased to be doing well for our society. | ||
Participating in this campaign makes me feel satisfied, giving something back to society. | ||
Perceived costs | I have to spend a lot of resources (in terms of monetary/nonmonetary sacrifice, including time or money) to participate in this campaign. | 0.922 |
Participating in this campaign is very demanding for me (e.g., sacrifice of time or money). | ||
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) participation intention | I think this campaign is a good idea. | 0.917 |
I would be willing to participate in this campaign. | ||
It is likely that I would contribute to this cause by getting involved in this campaign. | ||
I would consider participating this campaign in order to help children. |
SS | D.F | MSS | F | Sig | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participation effort (A) | 3.257 | 1 | 3.257 | 2.074 | 0.153 |
Construal level (B) | 0.970 | 1 | 0.970 | 0.617 | 0.434 |
A × B | 12.231 | 1 | 12.231 | 7.787 | 0.006 |
error | 155.488 | 99 | 1.571 |
SS | D.F | MSS | F | Sig | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participation effort (A) | 34.593 | 1 | 34.593 | 14.082 | 0.000 |
Construal level (B) | 0.661 | 1 | 0.661 | 0.269 | 0.605 |
A × B | 13.294 | 1 | 13.294 | 5.411 | 0.022 |
error | 243.201 | 99 | 2.457 |
SS | D.F | MSS | F | Sig | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participation effort (A) | 0.014 | 1 | 0.014 | 0.009 | 0.925 |
Construal level (B) | 5.370 | 1 | 5.370 | 3.470 | 0.065 |
A × B | 17.950 | 1 | 17.950 | 11.601 | 0.001 |
error | 153.178 | 99 | 1.547 |
High-Level Construal | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IV | → | MV | → | DV | → | Indirect Effect | 95% CI |
Participation effort | Warm glow | Participation intention | 0.72 | 0.2646 ~ 1.4348 | |||
Perceived costs | 0.01 | −0.0814 ~ 0.1701 | |||||
Low-LevelConstrual | |||||||
Participation effort | Warm glow | Participation intention | −0.18 | −0.7567 ~ 0.1893 | |||
Perceived costs | −0.62 | −1.2355 ~ −0.2573 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ahn, Y.; Lee, J. The Effect of Participation Effort on CSR Participation Intention: The Moderating Role of Construal Level on Consumer Perception of Warm Glow and Perceived Costs. Sustainability 2020, 12, 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010083
Ahn Y, Lee J. The Effect of Participation Effort on CSR Participation Intention: The Moderating Role of Construal Level on Consumer Perception of Warm Glow and Perceived Costs. Sustainability. 2020; 12(1):83. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010083
Chicago/Turabian StyleAhn, Yunjeong, and Jieun Lee. 2020. "The Effect of Participation Effort on CSR Participation Intention: The Moderating Role of Construal Level on Consumer Perception of Warm Glow and Perceived Costs" Sustainability 12, no. 1: 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010083
APA StyleAhn, Y., & Lee, J. (2020). The Effect of Participation Effort on CSR Participation Intention: The Moderating Role of Construal Level on Consumer Perception of Warm Glow and Perceived Costs. Sustainability, 12(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010083